Nuclear power sparks Australian poll battle
Published: 06:05 PM,May 01,2025 | EDITED : 10:05 PM,May 01,2025
Rich in solar and wind power, and bulging in critical minerals for renewable energy technology, Australia touts itself as a leader in the race to net-zero carbon emissions.
But a political battle is being waged ahead of Saturday’s elections over whether to change Australia’s trajectory and add nuclear reactors to the mix for the first time.
The row is reminiscent of the “climate wars” — a years-long political face-off over the need to slash carbon emissions — that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to end when he took power three years ago.
Australia sits on some of the world’s largest uranium reserves but it has legally banned nuclear power generation for a quarter of a century. In the run-up to Saturday’s vote, conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton announced a $200-billion plan to build seven large-scale nuclear reactors by 2050.
His proposal would ramp up gas production, slow the rollout of solar and wind projects and ditch the clean energy goals set by Albanese’s centre-left government. Dutton says nuclear power would be cheaper and more reliable than renewable energy. “I haven’t committed to nuclear energy for votes. I committed to it because it’s in the best interest of our country,” he said in a televised leaders’ debate.
Interest in nuclear power is growing internationally as nations struggle to cut their dependence on fossil fuels. Thirty-one countries including the United States, France and Britain have signed up to a pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
Australia is a fossil fuel powerhouse with vast reserves of coal and gas but it is also drenched in sun, with a broad landscape to accommodate wind turbines and solar panels. The national science agency CSIRO estimates that the nuclear option would be 50 per cent more expensive for Australia than renewable energy and take at least 15 years to become operational.
“The total development lead time needed for nuclear means it cannot play a major role in electricity sector emission abatement,” it said.
Even countries with decades of experience in nuclear power generation struggle to get plants running on time and on budget. France started its latest reactor Flamanville 3 in December — 12 years behind schedule and about 10 billion euros ($11 billion) beyond its original three-billion-euro budget.
Albanese has embraced the global push towards decarbonisation, pouring public money into the renewable sector.
The share of renewable energy in Australia’s electricity generation has increased to record highs in recent years, contributing 35 per cent in 2023, government data shows.
The energy industry has largely backed a renewables-first pathway as ageing coal-fired plants are retired. “We are in a position now where coal-fired power stations are closing — and they have done a great job for a long time. But they are old and need to be replaced by something,” said Clean Energy Council spokesperson Chris O’Keefe.
“The best economic response for Australia right now is to continue on the path we are on. That is, building batteries, solar farms, wind farms,” he said. Dave Sweeney, nuclear power analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said switching the energy strategy now would cause “economic dislocation and rupture”.
Laura Chung
The writer is Correspondent for AFP covering Australia, New Zealand and Pacific islands
But a political battle is being waged ahead of Saturday’s elections over whether to change Australia’s trajectory and add nuclear reactors to the mix for the first time.
The row is reminiscent of the “climate wars” — a years-long political face-off over the need to slash carbon emissions — that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to end when he took power three years ago.
Australia sits on some of the world’s largest uranium reserves but it has legally banned nuclear power generation for a quarter of a century. In the run-up to Saturday’s vote, conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton announced a $200-billion plan to build seven large-scale nuclear reactors by 2050.
His proposal would ramp up gas production, slow the rollout of solar and wind projects and ditch the clean energy goals set by Albanese’s centre-left government. Dutton says nuclear power would be cheaper and more reliable than renewable energy. “I haven’t committed to nuclear energy for votes. I committed to it because it’s in the best interest of our country,” he said in a televised leaders’ debate.
Interest in nuclear power is growing internationally as nations struggle to cut their dependence on fossil fuels. Thirty-one countries including the United States, France and Britain have signed up to a pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
Australia is a fossil fuel powerhouse with vast reserves of coal and gas but it is also drenched in sun, with a broad landscape to accommodate wind turbines and solar panels. The national science agency CSIRO estimates that the nuclear option would be 50 per cent more expensive for Australia than renewable energy and take at least 15 years to become operational.
“The total development lead time needed for nuclear means it cannot play a major role in electricity sector emission abatement,” it said.
Even countries with decades of experience in nuclear power generation struggle to get plants running on time and on budget. France started its latest reactor Flamanville 3 in December — 12 years behind schedule and about 10 billion euros ($11 billion) beyond its original three-billion-euro budget.
Albanese has embraced the global push towards decarbonisation, pouring public money into the renewable sector.
The share of renewable energy in Australia’s electricity generation has increased to record highs in recent years, contributing 35 per cent in 2023, government data shows.
The energy industry has largely backed a renewables-first pathway as ageing coal-fired plants are retired. “We are in a position now where coal-fired power stations are closing — and they have done a great job for a long time. But they are old and need to be replaced by something,” said Clean Energy Council spokesperson Chris O’Keefe.
“The best economic response for Australia right now is to continue on the path we are on. That is, building batteries, solar farms, wind farms,” he said. Dave Sweeney, nuclear power analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation, said switching the energy strategy now would cause “economic dislocation and rupture”.
Laura Chung
The writer is Correspondent for AFP covering Australia, New Zealand and Pacific islands