Skip to main content

The Downside of Saying No: Nuclear Energy in Australia

The Australian energy business is an imperfect analogue to the American – the antipodean market has its own quirks, but both leave electricity production to private industry, not to the government. So a report on Australia’s energy policies can be seen as having utility on this side of the world. All that said, a report from the Energy Policy Institute of Australia is less interesting as a potential alternate guide for America than for what it says about nuclear energy.

In the interests of reducing policy uncertainty and of lowering the risk to investment in the energy industry, governments should no longer pursue energy policy and climate policy independently of each other – governments must integrate energy policy and climate policy into a coherent whole, whilst they continue to facilitate open energy markets.

This does sound like something applicable to the United States. In any event, it leads to this recommendation:

The continuation of the prohibition of nuclear power generation in Australia is unnecessary and should be removed; the powers of ARPANSA [Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency] as independent regulator should be broadened to cover all developments throughout Australia; although ARPANSA is already accountable by law for its performance as a safety regulator, there should be public participation in its activities in the public interest.

ARPANSA would likely regulate any nuclear energy facilities built in Australia, so this makes sense. It also makes a pitch for small reactors, though this may be an attempt to get something through the door:

There are significant technological advances in safe nuclear power generation. In particular, factory-produced, small modular reactors (SMRs) are faster to install and are less capital-intensive than the larger, traditional nuclear power plants. SMRs are considered suitable for powering mines and towns in remote locations in many parts of Australia.


This is think tank stuff, so one has to consider who is footing the bill for nice lunches and energy friendly reports. But I have to say that the Energy Policy Institute seems reasonably non-judgmental on energy choices. But there are things like this:

Technological innovation is necessary but is universally characterized by patient, high-risk, high-reward investment. This is particularly the case in the clean energy sector where good ideas abound but true innovation through to widespread commercial deployment is rare (e.g. renewable energy with storage and carbon capture and storage). As a result, global achievements in decarbonizing the energy sector continue to lag global ambitions.

This leads to a bit I find dubious:

Attempting to pick individual technology winners exposes governments to the risk of a specific failure becoming a political issue and being used to reduce or shut down support for a particular technology, or even the broader clean energy programs.

Which is the kind of thing that gets written when you want to shut down nascent or developing ideas. It’s ambiguous enough to let pass, though it does raise a flag. Free marketeers like to take fairly absolutist positions – see The Heritage Foundation in this country for a more local example  –and one learns to bypass it as perhaps a little too utopian – at least, if that’s your utopia.

I imagine the institute finds its money from different energy companies, but none seem too interested in trashing renewables or any other potential energy source – and the report does point out that the world is doing itself a disservice by politicizing energy, including nuclear energy. Still, a healthy skepticism should always be brought to think tank reports.


Let’s reiterate a general feeling about Australia (and neighbor New Zealand): It will never put up a nuclear facility. It’s almost an article of faith, similar to the way that no Maryland politician of any political stripe would suggest drilling for oil in the Chesapeake Bay or do anything perceived to besmirch it. It’s a tribal thing, detached from politics and tied up with regional or national identity. But Australia (if not New Zealand) has been making more conciliatory noises lately, particularly because it has had little success ratcheting down its carbon emissions. So I’ll stick with my assessment – for now. The Australians can prove me wrong anytime they want.


Joffan said…
Actually the pro-nuclear sticker is Swedish.
Mitch said…
I know this sounds crazy, but is there any chance that Australia is so antinuke from way back is because of "On The Beach" somehow?
Dogmug said…
My prediction is that Australia WILL embrace nuclear within months of the first unequivocal major climate-change induced disaster. I wish it didn't take pain to change people's minds, but we're past the point where we can correct the problem of induced climate change before people start getting hurt.

Development of "green" energy there is not proceeding quickly at all, and there's already a large, well- entrenched uranium mining industry.

The biggest block to Australian nuclear these days appears to be the rich, politically and culturally powerful Broinowski family. They are overall a decent and philanthropic lot, but several members are deeply and extremely anti- nuclear. Still, I think one or more of them will come around.
Mark Flanagan said…
To Joffan - The first thing I thought when I saw it is, Looks Swedish - the yellow and blue. Maybe the Aussies adopted it for their use - or maybe I just misread something. It happens. Still, a cool sticker.
Joffan said…
Michael Karnerfors of Lund, Sweden created the logo. You can read about his "discussion" with the owners of the corresponding "no thanks" logo in his blog entries starting here.
OmegaPaladin said…
Picking technologies is a bad idea unless you know for certain which will pan out. Perhaps their crystal ball works, but I have found that trying to predict the future of technology doesn't work very well. Supporting low-pollution sources in general without specifying a technology makes more sense than trying to latch onto a particular technology like solar thermal or gas cooled modular reactors.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…