I'm not at all across the Nuclear Energy political discourse, though I understand it's a uh... hot topic here. The article you linked is about what I would expect from both sides.
Theoretically I'm not against nuclear power. It's miles better than coal and oil, and Reactor design and safety has come a long way. France is a great example of a country who has made it work.
However. It kind of seems unnecessary at this point. Solar and wind are cheaper, and already have industries in hockey-stick growth - including Lithium which Australia is also getting better at (locally and with Australian-owned companies abroad). Australia's key strength has always[1] been digging stuff out of the ground, and we still get to do that in a renewable future.
Solar and wind also don't have black swan risks like nuclear - regardless of how much safer its become - and they're distributed, with fault tolerance / buffers built in by batteries. I assume the Libs' nuclear plan does not include building a ton of batteries to address those issues.
I feel like we've just leapfrogged Nuclear as a useful solution, similar to the way many developing countries will be able to leapfrog entire industrial revolutions once clean energy is ubiquitous.
Investing in nucalear at this point would literally be going backwards.
> I'm not at all across the Nuclear Energy political discourse ... The article you linked is about what I would expect from both sides.
If you only read (or skim) one technical report on Australia's energy needs and potential solutions:
GenCost: cost of building Australia’s future electricity needs
Each year, CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) collaborate with industry stakeholders to update GenCost. This leading economic report estimates the cost of building new electricity generation, storage, and hydrogen production in Australia out to 2050. Large-scale nuclear technology costs included for the first time.
Renewables remain the lowest cost new build electricity technology.
Nuclear came out as not available for quite some time (in Australia) and even then still the most expensive overall which caused the report to slammed as a product of anti nuclear lefty scientists by the Liberal | Murdoch crowd. (For a year prior to release it was hailed as the report that would prove doing nothing until off the shelf nuclear was a thing was the one true way).
The problem with the Australian Coalition's nuclear plan is it isn't a nuclear plan. It's a coal plan disguised as a nuclear plan. They're a party that's bought and paid for by coal interests who were in power recently for a decade and did nothing to kickstart nuclear. They got voted out partly due to inaction on climate change so they realised they need to propose something. Their half-hearted proposal will deliver less than 15% of the grid to nuclear by 2040, while stopping renewables, and being more expensive.
I don’t have strict view on nuclear but the link I posted goes into detail about why the current proposals are nonsense. There is zero chance that the technology being mooted will be available in the given timeline.
The purpose of nuclear power in the current Australian debate is purely to stall renewables in favour of fossil fuel. That’s it.
Presumably there’s a money trail leading to certain hyper-wealthy, vocal Australians.
