JENI O’DOWD: Australians will keep paying the price until there is a real conversation about nuclear energy

I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand being hot — especially over the holiday season when we often have friends over for drinks. Who wants sweat dripping down their back while trying to look festive? But this year, we’d better get used to it.

And yes, I know this is a first-world problem, but it cuts to the heart of broader issues — our skyrocketing energy bills, the fragile state of our grid, and the failure of governments to plan for a future where staying cool isn’t just a luxury for the rich.

Welcome to a merry sweltering Christmas, everyone.

After recent power outages in NSW, Premier Chris Minns urged us to conserve electricity during peak periods to prevent the energy grid from buckling. His advice? Avoid using dishwashers, pool pumps, and washing machines in the afternoon. And if you do switch on the air conditioner, expect “through the roof” prices.

And this was the state of things before summer had even started.

It reminded me of a power outage in NSW a few years ago. Businesses and homes were left without power for three to four days, leading to many small companies losing all their perishable goods and families (including mine) racing to fill up the freezer again.

Is this the Australia we want to live in? Too scared to put on the air conditioner, too hot to clean the pool, and too broke to buy a festive ham or a few kilos of prawns after paying the power bill?

Why can’t Labor and the Greens just accept that nuclear energy needs to be part of the conversation?

Countries worldwide have proven nuclear energy is a safe, reliable solution for meeting energy demands while reducing carbon emissions.

France, for example, gets about 70 per cent of its electricity from 56 reactors, and its waste management and reactor safety expertise rivals that of most other energy systems.

In the US, nuclear power provides 20 per cent of the country’s electricity, supported by stringent safety standards. Even small nations like Finland and Sweden are ahead of the game, with nuclear accounting for 30 per cent of their electricity. Finland, in particular, leads with the world’s first deep geological repository for nuclear waste.

So, while Finland powers through winter on stable nuclear energy, we will limp through summer, battling blackouts and mounting bills. Why can’t we aim higher?

The Coalition is the only major party with a nuclear policy, laying out a bold $331 billion plan to establish nuclear reactors at decommissioned coal sites, promising power bills 44 per cent cheaper over 25 years compared to Labor’s renewables strategy.

The promise to cut bills is based on assumptions like modest electricity demand growth and cost-effective re-purposing of old coal plant sites — assumptions critics, including the CSIRO, dispute.

When the Coalition’s nuclear strategy was first raised in June, it put communities in a head spin. Still, at least it’s a plan — much more than we’ve seen from Labor, which is clinging to its renewable energy strategy despite mounting evidence that we’re way off track.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers initially dismissed the Coalition’s proposal as “the dumbest policy ever.” Dumb? Let’s talk dumb. How about an energy strategy that leaves Australians sweating through the summer, businesses at risk of losing all their products during a cost-of-living crisis and homes at risk of blackouts at any time?

Last week, Labor’s Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, dismissed nuclear power as a “fantasy”, pointing to CSIRO data suggesting that it is far more expensive than renewable energy. However, this ignores nuclear power’s reliability and longevity.

Critics argue that nuclear plants can’t be operational before 2037, but renewables aren’t on track to solve our energy crisis any faster. Transmission lines, storage solutions, and grid upgrades are falling short.

Renewables are crucial, but our grid will remain vulnerable without nuclear energy to provide consistent baseload power.

The trouble is the word “nuclear” still makes people think of disasters like Chernobyl, but that’s lazy thinking. Modern nuclear reactors are safer and cleaner than ever, designed with cutting-edge technology to minimise risks while meeting the growing demand for carbon-free energy.

Modern designs, like small modular reactors, are safer, cleaner, and quicker to build, making them a realistic solution for Australia.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan described nuclear energy as “unfathomable.” A career politician, Allan has vowed never to let Victoria go nuclear.

But I’d rather listen to the experts than someone who has spent their life in politics.

Experts like Dr Chris Greig, a senior research scientist at Princeton University, and physicist Dr Sarah Lawley argue that Australia is falling dangerously short of its renewable energy targets.

And both have advocated for nuclear energy as a necessary part of a stable, low-emission future.

“On cost, my personal view is that nuclear will prove to be a good investment,” Dr Lawley said. “On the topic of de-carbonisation, I don’t think that we will get to net zero by 2050 without nuclear power.”

Will these expert voices be ignored while we endure blackout warnings and spiralling power bills?

Let’s not make nuclear energy another Badgerys Creek debacle. Discussions about a second Sydney airport began in 1946, and building finally started after 70 years of protests, delays, and political inertia.

If nuclear energy is left to the same fate, we’ll have many more sweltering Christmases ahead.

The heat will keep rising, the blackouts will keep coming, and Australians will keep paying the price until there is a real conversation about nuclear energy.