SIMON BIRMINGHAM: The Albanese Government’s knee-jerk opposition to nuclear puts Australia on back foot

Australia has the world’s largest known reserves of uranium — 1.7 million tonnes, to put a number on it.

Kazakhstan is the only close second at far fewer levels with 815,000 tonnes.

So, news that countries including the United States and United Kingdom want to turbocharge a new generation of zero emissions nuclear energy is good news for Australia, right?

Not if you’re the Albanese Government.

This week at the COP29 climate talks, Australia refused an appeal from our closest allies to sign onto a nuclear agreement to help decarbonise industry from early next year.

The reason? As stated by multiple Labor ministers and spearheaded by Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris Bowen: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear-energy industry.”

Mr Bowen also argued that Australia had an abundance of renewable energy resources, including more sunshine than the UK. But with this kind of narrow-minded approach from Labor, I beg to differ.

“Advanced nuclear technology will help decarbonise industry by providing low carbon heat and power, supporting new jobs and investment.”

Not my words, or any other member of Peter Dutton’s Liberal Party, but the UK Labour Party’s energy secretary, Ed Miliband.

He’s not alone. Others, such as:

Mateusz Morawiecki, Prime Minister of Poland: “The only clean, stable energy source that is technologically proven and verified in terms of safety is nuclear energy, which is having its big day today.”

John Kerry, former US special presidential envoy for climate: “We can’t get to net zero 2050 unless we have a pot, a mixture, of energy approaches in the new energy economy. And one of those elements which is essential in all the modelling I’ve seen, is nuclear.”

Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft: “Nuclear energy, in terms of an overall safety record, is better than other energy.”

Ulf Kristersson, Prime Minister of Sweden: “Sweden is going to build new nuclear power plants to produce more clean electricity and speed up the green transition. South Korea is a role model when it comes to developing new nuclear energy, and we are now enhancing our co-operation.”

And there are many, many more.

Already, 32 countries depend on nuclear energy for reliable, baseload electricity. Another 50 countries are looking to do so. Not if you’re the Albanese Government.

Of those 32 countries the nuclear share of their electricity is worth noting. For instance, France’s nuclear makes up 65 per cent, US 19 per cent, UK 13 per cent, Switzerland 32 per cent, Ukraine 50 per cent, Finland 42 per cent and South Korea 31 per cent.

The Albanese Government’s determination to oppose nuclear energy and reject international co-operation risks Australia’s energy future.

Why would Anthony Albanese and his Government put themselves so out of step with the rest of the world?

A political pre-determined position. The commitment to a scare campaign. No, not one against Labor, but so that they can run one against Peter Dutton.

Within hours of the Coalition announcing its nuclear energy policy, Labor had chosen the path of a political position. Images of three-eyed fish quickly circulated online from Labor members.

It was such a dumb and dangerous knee-jerk reaction that the Prime Minister reeled in his members after realising the impact that this type of misinformation could have on AUKUS, Australia’s commitment to obtain nuclear-powered submarines.

Before and during the next Federal election there will no doubt be a barrage of political opposition from Labor on nuclear. However, I invite you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

Currently, Australia obtains its energy supply from a range of sources — coal, gas, hydro and renewables, to name the majors.

These sources supplement one another as demand ebbs and flows to keep the grid stable and supply sustainable. Sounds sensible enough?

Would it not also seem sensible then to take the same approach and have a balanced mix of energy supply to help achieve the transition to net zero by 2050?

Not if you’re the Albanese Government.

Labor’s renewables-only pathway places Australia’s energy supply all in one basket. No other major economy is taking this approach to net zero.

There is an increasing role for cost competitive renewables. We should aspire for them to cover as much of our energy generation as is reliable and affordable.

However, estimates of additional transmission costs, additional costs of storage or overbuild required to achieve reliability, and more frequent replacement costs bring into real question the viability of this renewables-only pathway.

That’s why the Coalition believes Australia must have a balanced, technology neutral energy mix to deliver zero-emissions 24/7 power. Nuclear should be a part of that mix.

There is a reason so many other countries use zero-emissions nuclear energy. The small amount of waste can be safely and easily disposed of. The land footprint of a nuclear power plant is far less than wind or solar, with a longer operational life and less need for new power lines across the country.

The technology is safe enough for our international partners such as the US, Canada, the UK and France. It is also safe enough for residents of Lucas Heights in Sydney, who have lived and worked around an operating reactor since 1958.

This is why the Coalition has put forward this policy. Because it is right for Australia’s long term future.

Even without our own domestic nuclear industry, Australia — with the world’s largest uranium resources — should be helping other countries to pursue next generation nuclear technologies, not eschewing them.

After all, to tackle climate change we need everyone to hit net zero, even those without our wind or solar resources.

The Albanese Government’s determination to oppose nuclear energy and reject international co-operation risks Australia’s energy future and is an embarrassment for the world’s most uranium rich country.