As Outdated as Fossil Fuels

Nuclear Power no Solution to the Necessary Transition to Renewable Energy

In recent years, there has been increased interest in the establishment of nuclear reactors in existing coal producing communities. Australia is, of course, not the only jurisdiction that is once again jumping on the 'nuclear bandwagon'. As elsewhere, political tactics, as Adam Simpson has argued in The Conversation, have been a ‘useful diversion from real climate action’. Simpson writes: ‘What’s more, insisting that nuclear power is the only answer to Australia’s net zero commitments is a classic move from the playbook of those who oppose urgent action on climate change.’

Most recently, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton made clear his commitment to rolling out ‘emissions-free nuclear power plants to replace the energy supply from Australia’s dirty coal plants, which have begun to shut down across the country. He would also pause the rollout of wind and solar farms.’

The Age reported on Saturday 8 June 2024 that Peter Dutton said that the government’s renewable goal was unattainable and ‘there’s no sense in signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving.’

This climate obstructionism is short-sighted a best. At its worst it is a deliberate inaction in a time of crisis, dog-whistling and appeasing vested interests.

Much of the Australian Labor Party’s opposition to the pursuit of nuclear energy is nothing more than paying lip-service to real action on climate change. In response to Dutton’s comments, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen told The Age that ‘the Albanese government is currently committed to more than double the amount of renewable energy to 82 per cent of the grid by 2030 as the key measure to reach its climate target.’ All the while, Labor is approving significant coal and gas operations.

Proponents of the uptake of nuclear energy argue that there are many advantages of ‘increasing … adoption include the zero-carbon nature of generation, provision of baseload capability, a high capacity factor, and the ability to use waste heat to power other systems'.

Baw Baw Sustainability Network (BBSN) is fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy. BBSN argues that it offers little benefit in the transition to renewable energy and the reduction of atmospheric carbon. 

There are significant disadvantages of moving to nuclear energy production. It is well known that it is outdated, costly, and dangerous. It offers little in the way of solutions to climate change due to its long lead times and, in some cases, non-existing technologies. A recent report by the CSIRO stated that ‘A large scale nuclear reactor would cost $16 billion and take nearly two decades to build, according to CSIRO’s latest energy cost report card, calling into question the federal opposition’s plan to develop the controversial power source as part of Australia’s future energy mix.’

Vested interests, with questionable motives, are behind the calls to invest in nuclear energy. In addition, it offers little in the way of benefits for communities in which nuclear reactors are based and hold very real catastrophic risks. There is much push back from communities where reactors are proposed to replace coal fired power stations.

The David Suzuki Foundation has called nuclear energy sources as 'outdated as fossil fuels'. It has argued that the:

disadvantages of nuclear are well known. It can contribute to weapons proliferation, [remain highly toxic and] … must be carefully and permanently stored or disposed of. And while serious accidents are rare, they can be devastating and difficult to deal with, as  the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters demonstrated.

Like fossil fuels, nuclear power generation is significantly inefficient and energy intensive. Moreover, uranium is toxic.

'Uranium to fuel nuclear also raises problems, including high rates of lung cancer in miners and emissions from mining, transport and refining. Add that to the water vapour and heat it releases, and nuclear power produces “on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated” as onshore wind, according to Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson.

In his 2017 book Drawdown, which has become an important and influential text in the fight against rising atmospheric carbon, Paul Hawken has called nuclear energy no solution to reversing climate change. When it comes to arguments that nuclear energy offers a renewable 'fix', Hawken suggests it offers little.

The David Suzuki Foundation argues that one of the most powerful arguments against the shift to nuclear is that it is expensive: ‘at least five times more than wind and solar’. Suggestions that small modular reactors are a sensible substitute for their large scale counterparts are a foolish. Even on a small scale, reactors take ‘a long time to plan and build. Small modular reactors are likely to be even more expensive, especially considering they’ll produce far less electricity than larger plants. And … the various models are still at the prototype stage.’

Economics aside, it almost goes without saying that the disadvantages outweigh any benefit that nuclear energy may offer in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, as a consequence, it is no solution to the necessary transition to renewable energy. 

Arguing that nuclear power is benign renewable energy source is a dangerous fallacy perpetuated by ‘climate obstructionists’ who refuse to take real action on climate change.

Baw Baw Sustainability Network believes that by all measures, the disadvantages of nuclear energy outweigh any advantages. Real action on climate change is needed, nuclear energy is not the way to achieve it.

9 June 2024