Insisting nuclear power is the only way for Australia to achieve net zero by 2050 is a classic move from the playbook of those who oppose urgent action on climate change.
Small modular reactors are popular among conservative politicians and supposedly the Australian public. But they’re nowhere near ready to power Australia in time to replace coal-powered stations.
When Australia’s government and opposition argue over how to get to net zero emissions, nuclear power is the flashpoint. The argument against nuclear is stronger, but not for the obvious reason.
20 years ago, solar and wind were expensive enough to make nuclear seem like an option for Australia. With cheap renewables a reality, there’s simply no point to domestic nuclear.
Renewed interest in nuclear energy will go nowhere unless we talk about carbon pricing. As energy minister Chris Bowen points out, nuclear is extremely expensive.
Nearly 60 years after a radiation-leaking reactor was removed from a US Army base on the Greenland ice sheet, the military is exploring portable nuclear reactors again.
Advanced small modular reactors, known as SMRs, will probably have many advantages over older technology. But it’s not yet known how they will stack up against other sources of electricity.
Nuclear industry players tout small modular reactors as an “inherently safe,” cost-effective source of electricity. The reality may be less attractive.