It is important to explore the measures Menzies can put in place but the most important issue is delivery of a reliable national grid. We ignore overseas examples at our peril. The UK is a G20 leader in renewables but every day imports 10-15% of their electricity, Energy prices are between 4-6 times higher than America and 20% subsidies are being paid. The UK gov knows this is unsustainable and will "push forward" nuclear to boost energy security, cut costs for consumers and create jobs.
My preliminary view is that nuclear should be part of Australia's long term plan for sourcing reliable zero emission energy sufficient to meet the needs of our growing populations and industries. Technology (including waste management and safety) will evolve. Renewables with gas ought be relied on in the interim, then later managed in tandem with nuclear, subject to their limitations. There is much to consider but we cannot bar future generations from pursuing such opportunities.
However, Japan is taking positive steps in restarting its nuclear reactors under new security and safety measures established after the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011. The government recognizes nuclear energy as an important source of baseload electricity generation that can help achieve Japan’s climate targets and bolster energy security. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/energysource/japans-economic-revitalization-requires-nuclear-energy/
Amazon Google and Meta support efforts to at least triple nuclear energy worldwide by 2050. The technology companies signed a pledge first adopted in December 2023 by more than 20 countries, including the U.S., at the U.N. Climate Change Conference . Financial institutions including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley backed the pledge last year. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/12/amazon-google-and-meta-support-tripling-nuclear-power-by-2050.html
It is not easy to make a choice, but safety and environmental impacts are important too. According to the World Nuclear Organisation, Japan has reviewed its policy after the 2011 nuclear disaster. Up until 2011, it has been generating 30% of electricity from nuclear reactors and planned to extend it to 40% by 2017. Now the plan is to scale it down to only generate 20% by 2030.
Another important point is employment generation, directly and indirectly, by setting up nuclear power plants and distribution networks. Australian population is rising and we need to find stable jobs (like stable electricity, pun intended!) for the next generation. Abundant and reliable energy would sooner or later attract manufacturing and would bring about overall prosperity
Here it would take changes of law in the Senate, at least 20 years to build, persuading people to accept plant near their homes, work on waste disposal, AND financing by us the public to the tune of many millions of dollars. What suits our geography is using sun and wind. Nuclear is not easy here and promoting it, means promoting delay and continued reliance on fossil fuel use. There are 4 million households with solar -must they cut that off and use nuclear to ensure nuclear makes some money?
The time line and the cost of going nuclear. We all know that projects always take longer and cost more than when they are proposed. Do we really want to burden the next generations with this? If we spent that money on upgrading the grid and renewables we would reach net zero faster. And remember, the longer we emit CO2 the longer it will take to dissipate, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 120 years!!
There is northing inherently wrong with nuclear, but there is something wrong with it in the context of Australia. Extensive modelling from CSIRO and AEMO tell us that this would be more expensive for Australians than renewable/gas, and take far too long to be built. Different countries are different, and all the available evidence suggests that nuclear is not a viable energy source in this country, which is why the private sector has said they won't participate in it.
Not all countries have the same resources available. We can bear nuclear energy in mind, however there are multiple issues with implementing it here. Australia is likely the envy of many other countries, given our opportunities for solar energy and wind energy. Just because other countries are doing something doesn't mean we should necessarily follow.
With the largest known uranium reserves, estimated at 30%, it should not be even debated, whether Australia should go nuclear! Of course, we do. Nuclear energy beats any other form of energy, in terms of energy density and provides one of most reliable base load power. And since all of us should be rightly concerned about climate change brought by burning fossil fuels in the last half a century, it's also important to adopt nuclear, as it probably has the lowest carbon footprint of all. Go nucle
It feels like we have missed the boat here. If Nuclear Fusion was an option, we might explore, but it would take anywhere from 10-15 years to have something working and I don't think we have that time available to make the difference that our children/grandchildren need.
It could be a possibility if modular nuclear plant is available at a reasonable cost.
If we shut down coal, Nuclear is the only way we can have a reliable energy supply
To not consider Nuclear is to destine our children to dark future. No manufacturing.
Australia has huge alternative resources
Unless modular nuclear power plant is available at reasonable cost, it is not advisable for Australia since we have plenty of sun, wind and potential for hydrogen
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation