Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)

Developing a plan and a regulatory system for nuclear power will allow Australia to be ready to adopt the nuclear option immediately if it makes sense in the future.

Given five years to plan and create a regulatory framework, an optimistic construction time of ten years would mean that nuclear power would not be expected to start generating electricity in Australia for at least fifteen years.

If the Coalition started a nuclear energy program after the 2025 election, nuclear power stations could not be expected to start generating electricity in Australia until the 2040s. This would be a serious problem for a Coalition government wanting to build nuclear plants to replace ageing coal-fired power stations on the same site.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) projects all coal-fired power stations will have retired by 2037 and ninety percent of them within a decade. Under this scenario, solar and wind power will have replaced all coal-fired power stations well before 2040. If the Coalition plans to subsidize coal plants to extend their life, then reaching the 2050 net-zero emissions target will become much more difficult.

AEMO developed three scenarios for Australia’s energy transition. Modelling by Frontier Economics for the Coalition uses the ‘Progressive Change’ scenario which will take longer to decarbonize the energy sector than the ‘Step Change’ scenario favored by Labor.

The result of selecting this scenario will be greater emissions for the whole planet. Recent modelling by the Climate Change Authority calculated that the Coalition nuclear plan would yield at least an additional two billion tons of carbon emissions, consistent with a global pathway to two and sixth tenths degrees warming and missing Australia’s 2030 Paris emissions reduction commitment (forty three percent) by more than five percent.

There are also serious doubts about the Coalition’s claims that its plans are cheaper.

The Frontier Economics modelling says yes, mostly because of savings from delaying coal plant closures, the additional systems costs for renewables and the shorter lifetimes of wind and solar plants.

The most recent CSIRO-AEMO GenCost annual report strongly disagrees. It considers all of the factors that Frontier Economics says makes nuclear cheaper and still finds that nuclear power is twice as expensive as renewables, consistent with similar studies overseas. It also doesn’t include the government subsidies required to encourage Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations to continue generating electricity until the 2040s.

Those coal-fired power stations will force owners to compete head-to-head with much cheaper renewables, particularly during the middle of the day when solar power could provide cheaper power than coal and nuclear.

Voters will have two choices. One choice is a continuation of our energy transition to cheaper renewables already underway to stay below two degrees. The other choice is an uncertain nuclear future from 2040 resulting in more emissions and default on our Paris targets.

There is a possible way that nuclear energy might be part of a future energy mix. Regardless of how the last few percent of the electricity system is decarbonized close to 2050, it will be very expensive. Nuclear, possibly SMRs, might become cost-competitive at that late stage in the transition to net-zero but only time will tell.

Climate Change Authority

Part 1 of 2 Parts

Australia’s taxpayers have already paid a price for the political division over the country’s energy future. Now the Coalition party’s nuclear policy is effectively hitting their wallet even before voters get their say on whether it’s part of the nation’s energy transition.

All Australians pay for the lack of a bipartisan approach to meeting national and global carbon emissions targets. This is because uncertainty creates risk for investors and this risk adds a premium to the financing costs of energy megaprojects which is a cost that has to be recouped.

Throwing the Coalition’s nuclear plans into that discussion just fuels the uncertainty even before analysis of which path is the cheaper, more appropriate or most timely for our energy transition.

Nuclear energy shouldn’t be prohibited by law as a potential part of Australia’s future energy mix. There are solid no-regrets arguments for lifting legislative bans on it to expand flexibility, especially as the final few percent of achieving a carbon-free energy system later in the 2040s will be expensive no matter which option is chosen.

In the run-up to the Australia federal election, the country again finds itself at a party-political crossroads in its response to climate change. Despite more than a decade of debate driven by political parties, Australians still have no unified approach on energy options or reaching emissions targets. This election they still have to choose between two pathways to decarbonize Australia’s electricity sector.

The Labor party government is maintaining its target of eighty-two percent renewable electricity by 2030, even though that trajectory is under some strain. Renewable installations have plateaued, even though 2024 is expected to show a record four and three tenths’ gigawatts of approved large-scale solar and wind projects and three and two tenths’ gigawatts of small-scale rooftop solar installed.

The reason for the slowdown in renewable energy implementation is complex but is partly caused by connection difficulties for large-scale renewables and community pushback on transmission lines and wind and solar farms.

The Coalition has the same 2050 net-zero goal as the Labor party but has yet to provide interim targets. It has instead promised to include nuclear power as part of the energy mix. This will begin with two small modular reactors (SMRs), which are under three hundred megawatts capacity, to come online in 2035 in South Australia and Western Australia. No commercial SMRs have been built in the Western world and the only examples are in China and Russia.

If conventional large-scale reactors are shown to be a better option, the Coalition plans for these to start producing electricity in 2037 in two locations in each of Queensland and New South Wales and one in Victoria.

There are also serious doubts that the Coalition’s nuclear timetable is achievable. International experience shows that recent construction times in the Western world far exceed a decade. However, in countries like the United Arab Emirates with different regulatory and governance systems it’s under nine years.

However, before any nuclear power plant can be built, Australia first needs to create a plan and a regulatory system. That could take up to five years, including the time needed to develop and implement the social license. There is an argument that Australia should do this anyway and remove the current legislated prohibition on nuclear energy, as favored by opinion polls.

Australian Energy Market Operator

Please read Part 2 next

Harnessing energy from nuclear fusion could be critical in the shift towards a decarbonized global energy system. As issues of climate change and energy security are becoming increasingly important, the promise of an apparently “clean”, “abundant” and “safe” energy source, such as fusion, is ever more appealing.

The fusion industry is growing rapidly and the trope that fusion is “30 years away and always will be” is beginning to lose credibility as the technology advances beyond its experimental stage.

But it’s too easy to generate hype around a seemingly ideal solution to societal challenges and it is possible that the reality of fusion energy may come into tension with the issues it proposes to solve.

Contextualizing this hype and exploring areas where these tensions may arise is critical to ensuring that the technology evolves in an ethically sound way and can provide net societal benefit if it proves viable.

The appeal of a zero-carbon, low-waste, reliable and relatively safe energy source, such as fusion, is obvious. The development of fusion power is set against the background of growing global energy demand in the context of climate change. This all requires a transition to a clean energy system.

It’s widely believed that fusion energy would be able to solve the problems of existing energy sources. It would circumvent the intermittency of renewables, because the supply from solar and wind power is unpredictable, reliant as it is on weather. Fusion also avoids the serious concern of long-lived radioactive waste, safety issues and public concerns around conventional nuclear fission power. It would help reduce the carbon cost and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Fusion energy may also reduce energy security concerns because some of its key resources are abundant. The deuterium fuel used in some fusion processes can be readily extracted from seawater. This would reduce reliance on fuel imports and insulate nations against global market shocks.

But these benefits of fusion power may mask deeper ethical questions around the development of the technology and some potentially detrimental impacts. One of the most obvious instances of such a tension arises over environmental sustainability. This is especially true of the association with climate change mitigation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change is an issue that lends itself to the “techno-fix” approach. It can be tempting to avoid making important changes to our behavior because we believe we can depend on technology to fix everything. This is referred to as the “mitigation obstruction” argument.

Considering greenhouse gas emissions and energy demand also raises questions of justice and equity. Energy demand is rapidly growing in certain regions, primarily the global south, that have contributed the least to the current climate crisis. Yet fusion development is overwhelmingly based in the global north. If fusion proves viable, those areas with access to such a transformative technology are not necessarily those who will need it most.

Climate change is a global challenge, and any proposed solution must account for global impact. The context of development must incorporate considerations of global inequity in the deployment of fusion if we are to meet the climate challenge.

There are similar concerns about the materials used for fusion energy. These include some critical minerals, including lithium, tungsten and cobalt. Mining and processing of these minerals emits greenhouse gases. In some cases, mining operations are located on or near the lands of indigenous peoples. The supply chains for these materials are subject to geopolitical tensions, with alliances, collaboration, competition and the potential for monopolies forming.

Mercury is used in the processing of lithium for fusion reactors. Not only is it environmentally damaging and toxic but mainly depends on Chinese production.

The accelerating pace of fusion energy increases the risk of ignoring these potential hazards along the way. Approaching these potential ethical tensions requires systematic thought throughout the development process, from considering the implications of design decisions and materials choices, through to equitable deployment strategies and knowledge sharing.

Access to energy underpins human wellbeing and development and the energy system has deep societal impacts. Failure to engage with the social and ethical challenges of new and emerging technologies in this area would be irresponsible at best, and harmful at worst. This is particularly true when impacts of fusion technology may compound the precise challenges it aims to solve.

Nuclear Fusion