The latest crop of barrackers for nuclear power generation in Australia are remiss in that they have never asked a simple, basic and very obvious question.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
That is "why, if nuclear reactors are such a good fit for this country, didn't Australian governments start building them 60 years ago?"
Nuclear power generation has been on the table since the late 1940s. The technology was well advanced by the mid-1950s. It has been around for a very long time.
The decision not to go nuclear was certainly not due to a lack of interest or advocacy.
Sir Ernest Titterton, the foundation chair of nuclear physics at the Australian National University and subsequently the director of the ANU's Research School of Physical Science, was a staunch advocate of nuclear power generation in Australia.
He presented what appeared to be a cogent case in several books, including Facing the Atomic Future (1955) and Uranium, Energy Source of the Future as well as numerous articles in scientific journals and letters to the editor.
As late as 1979 he was writing, stating "nuclear power is the cheapest, cleanest and safest method of power production yet devised by man".
So why, given Sir Ernest's books and articles were widely read and his arguments had a strong following, didn't the Menzies' government or the state governments of the day go down the nuclear path?
The answer is as simple as it is obvious. Australia had massive coal reserves near which power stations could be built and also enormous potential for renewable electricity generation in the form of hydro-electricity.
Notable examples of the latter are to be found in the Snowy, the Kiewa Valley in Victoria and in Tasmania.
In 1960 renewables accounted for 19 per cent of all electricity generated in Australia, peaking at 26 per cent a few years later with the completion of Snowy Hydro 1.0. That compares to just 9 per cent in 2021-2022.
In 1960 coal accounted for 75 per cent and the remaining 6 per cent of electricity came from liquid fuelled generators.
Despite Sir Ernest's sweeping claims, nuclear power was not, and never has been, the "cheapest, safest and cleanest" energy option for Australia.
That is not because there is anything inherently wrong with the technology per se. It is because "the lucky country" has always had other, and better, cards to play.
This was reinforced as recently as last week with the release of the consultation draft of the 2023-2024 GenCost report prepared by the CSIRO in conjunction with the Australian Energy Market Operator.
It found that the still largely speculative small modular reactors (SMRs) being hyped by the Coalition and some in the media were the most expensive new-build energy generation technology available.
Firmed renewables, even taking into account the blow out in the cost of SnowyHydro 2.0, the cost of storage and of transmission infrastructure, were much cheaper.
The conclusion? "Variable renewables were still found to have the lowest cost of any new-build technology".
Or, as the AEMO concluded earlier this month: "A renewable grid with hydro, batteries, flexible gas and transmission is the lowest-cost way to deliver a secure and reliable energy grid".
While the renewed interest in nuclear energy on display at the recent COP-28 is understandable given the energy insecurity being experienced in much of Europe and elsewhere, it's a matter of horses for courses.
Six decades ago Australia had an abundant range of energy options of which nuclear was just one. That is just as true today.
