Australia, one of the last countries in the world not to embrace nuclear power, is considering a course change that could see the country end its decades-long opposition to the energy source.
With less than a year to go until the Australian election, the Liberal National Coalition parties are making nuclear power a central part of their policy platform to topple the current Labor government. This is partly motivated by their historic opposition to renewables and by recent polls showing that more Australians than ever are open to nuclear power.
If they win the election next May, the Coalition has pledged to build nuclear reactors at seven sites in Australia by 2050.
“Only with a balanced mix of technologies, including renewables, zero-emission nuclear and gas, does Australia have any hope of reaching net zero by 2050 while remaining an economically prosperous economy,” Ted O’Brien, the coalition’s energy spokesman, said in an interview.
There is still a long way to go, even if the coalition wins.
Although Australia is one of the world’s largest sources of uranium, energy experts say there’s a reason Australia has never embraced nuclear power. In addition to the historical problems stemming from nuclear weapons testing in the region, any new policy would have to overturn laws that currently ban nuclear power, overcome local resistance and address the formidable costs of building new reactors, all while creating an entirely new domestic nuclear industry to build, operate and support the reactors.
But Australia’s potential move to nuclear is part of a global trend. Climate change and rising geopolitical tensions are forcing the world to rethink energy security and efforts to reduce emissions.
South Korea has recently changed course, Japan is trying to restart shut-down reactors, the United States is experimenting with smaller reactors, and China is considering building as many as ten more reactors a year.
This means that Australia now belongs to a shrinking group of developed economies that do not use, have never used, and have no plans to develop nuclear energy.
The coalition’s proposal comes as the share of renewables in the country’s energy mix has doubled from around 16% in 2016 to more than 32% in 2022. Given the abundance of land and readily available renewable resources, experts are questioning the cost of deploying nuclear reactors. Many ongoing projects around the world are facing delays and cost overruns.
According to 2024 research from Australia’s leading research institute CSIRO, nuclear power is currently the most expensive energy option available.
“It won’t be possible to have nuclear power, at least not in 2040,” said Dr Asma Aziz, a senior lecturer in energy engineering in the School of Engineering at Edith Cowan University. “We don’t have clarity on the costs, safety is an issue and I don’t know how many people would want to live near a nuclear power plant.”
Peter Dutton, leader of the opposition Liberal Party, claims they could have the first reactors up and running within 10 years. But a 2006 report produced during a conservative government estimated it would likely take 15 years to build a viable nuclear power plant in Australia.
The incumbent Labor government points to these factors in underscoring its opposition to the Coalition’s proposals. Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the Coalition’s nuclear plans would “at best meet 4% of Australia’s energy needs.”
“Nuclear power is too slow to sustain, too expensive to be economically viable and provide affordable energy, and too risky for Australia’s energy needs,” Bowen said in a statement.
Test times
Australia has a long and fraught history with nuclear power. From the mid-20th century, nuclear weapons testing left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Australians and sparked a protest movement that continues to this day.
In the 1950s, the United Kingdom conducted twelve major nuclear weapons tests at three sites in Australia. Often, citizens were not informed of the risks and consent was not obtained from the indigenous communities on whose land the tests were conducted.
This was followed in 1966 by nuclear tests by the French government in the Pacific Ocean, much closer to Sydney than to Paris.
The tests created a fierce anti-nuclear movement across the country, which had long campaigned for a complete ban on uranium mining. Attempts to build a nuclear reactor at Jervis Bay on Australia’s east coast were met with fierce protests and eventually abandoned.
In 1998, then-centre-right Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard banned nuclear power development in Australia as part of a deal with the environmentally-friendly Greens Party. The ban remains in place.
According to a survey by the Lowy Institute, in 2011 62% of Australians were against nuclear energy, while only 35% were in favour.
However, there are indications that Australians’ attitudes to nuclear power may be changing. An April 2024 Essential Research poll found that more than 50% of Australians supported the development of a nuclear industry in Australia.
Nuclear option
In light of this shift, the Liberals plan to make lifting the ban on nuclear energy a key part of their platform at the next election.
So far, Liberal Party leader Dutton has released only the general details of his plan. Seven nuclear power stations would be built in Australia over the next 2½ decades, with reactors built on the sites of decommissioned coal-fired power stations. Dutton said the first two stations could be operational by 2035.
The nuclear power plants themselves would be state-owned, financed by public money rather than the private sector. However, details such as the ultimate cost of the policy, the planned energy mix and how future governments would bridge the transition to nuclear power are unclear.
“We are at a crossroads in Australia and the path we take in the pursuit of net zero will determine what kind of country we are by mid-century,” O’Brien said in an interview.
Supporters of the Coalition’s policy point to a shift in other major economies, which are re-embracing nuclear power as a reliable and tested energy source to help Australia meet its 2050 net zero targets.
Brandon Munro, executive chairman of uranium development company Bannerman Energy, said he believes nuclear power would be “absolutely essential to Australia’s long-term competitiveness and prosperity.”
“I think it is naive to think about a deep decarbonisation of industrial processes without such a key instrument, especially now that most other industrial countries are massively focusing on greater use of nuclear energy,” he said.
Climate Wars
But not everyone agrees. Some accuse the Coalition of choosing nuclear power as the last weapon in Australia’s decades-long political battle over climate change. It’s a last-ditch effort by centre-right parties to resist a future driven by renewables.
Australia is one of the world’s largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, and is also one of the largest exporters of coal and gas. As a result, the country has faced fierce political battles over how to tackle rising emissions over the past two decades, leading to the fall of governments and the removal of prime ministers.
“The Coalition has allowed its ideological opposition to wind and solar to get in the way of smart policymaking and investment in Australia,” Energy Minister Bowen said, adding that Australia needs more energy capacity now, not more than a decade from now.
Many had hoped the debate would finally be settled after the May 2022 election. Climate change was a decisive issue in the vote, which saw a large number of independent, pro-green energy lawmakers elected and the coalition, long accused of dragging its feet on the renewable energy transition, ousted from power.
After taking office, new Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese introduced the country’s first emissions targets and attempted to accelerate the transition to renewable energy. However, investment has yet to materialize and the Coalition has stepped up its attacks on the energy transition.
Critics point to the opposition’s lack of detail on how Australia could close the gap between its ageing coal-fired power stations and a potential nuclear future without major investment in an alternative energy source such as renewables.
According to Ian Lowe, an energy expert and emeritus professor at Griffith University in Queensland, the policy could be an attempt by parts of the Liberal Party to extend the transition to coal and further delay the transition to renewables.
“It is an act of desperation to appease those in the coalition who do not accept the science of climate change,” he said.
