Coalition pushes Nuclear Energy- why

[Sparty]

What's behind the Coalition's push towards nuclear energy?

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/progra...rgy-/103870954

Investigative journalist Marian Wilkinson sheds some light on a possible source behind the Coalition's enthusiasm for nuclear energy.

.................................................. ....................

"These results send a clear message that Peter Dutton's nuclear policy is a major liability for the Liberal Party, and disastrous for himself as a candidate."
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/...oral-seat-poll

[Sparty]

Coalition's nuclear fantasy would create billions of tonnes more climate pollution.

https://theaimn.com/nuclear-is-a-fan...limate-policy/

[Sparty]

Crossbench MPs, state premiers and government figures have lined up to pour cold water on the Coalition's pledge for a nuclear-powered Australia by 2035.
Read why: https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/...tates-teal-mps

https://thefifthestate.com.au/column...uence-machine/
Behind the current campaign to bring nuclear energy to Australia is a deliberate agenda to prolong coal generation and disrupt the renewables rollout.

Claude AI's view: Strategy to Prolong Coal and Gas, Introduce Nuclear Energy

Strategic Efforts to Prolong Fossil Fuels and Introduce Nuclear Power in Australia

Key Strategy Overview
Documents obtained by The Fifth Estate reveal a coordinated strategy to maintain coal and gas usage while eventually transitioning Australia toward nuclear energy. This strategy is primarily being orchestrated by:

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) - Australia's influential conservative think tank
Nick Jorss - A Queensland coal mining executive who is assembling financial donors
Nuclear industry advocates, particularly Stephen Wilson (University of Queensland Adjunct Professor)

Timeline of the Strategic Plan

2020s: Defend and preserve coal and gas usage
2030s: Build mini and small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear plants
2040s: Claimed benefits in energy security, environmental outcomes, and low-cost power

Political Context

Implementation relies on the Liberal-National coalition winning the next federal election
Nuclear power is currently prohibited under Australian law
Labor government remains committed to renewable energy transition
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton delivered a nuclear policy speech at an IPA event in July 2023, using talking points that closely mirrored IPA themes

Energy Security as Central Argument

The strategy frames nuclear power as essential for "energy security" and connects it to national security
This messaging directly contradicts Australia's climate commitments:

43% emissions reduction by 2030
82% renewable energy by 2030
Net zero emissions by 2050

Technical and Economic Context

The NuScale SMR project in Idaho (referenced by advocates) was canceled in November 2023 due to cost overruns
CSIRO's 2024 GenCost report found:

Large-scale nuclear power would cost at least 50% more than solar and wind with battery storage
Nuclear would take 15+ years to develop
Small Modular Reactors could be 4-6 times more expensive than renewables

The strategy represents a significant challenge to Australia's current renewable energy transition pathway and climate commitments.

[Sparty]

I asked DeepSeek AI to review Claude's response above:
The strategy you’ve outlined raises several questions about its reasonableness, feasibility, and alignment with Australia’s energy and climate goals. Here’s a breakdown of key considerations:

### 1. **Political Feasibility**
- **Nuclear Prohibition**: Australia currently bans nuclear power, so implementing this strategy would require legislative changes. This is only plausible if the Liberal-National coalition wins the next election and prioritizes nuclear energy—a politically contentious issue.
- **Public Opinion**: Nuclear energy has historically faced opposition in Australia due to cost, waste, and safety concerns. Prolonging coal and gas could also face backlash given growing climate awareness.

### 2. **Economic Viability**
- **Cost of Nuclear**: The cancellation of NuScale’s SMR project in the U.S. and CSIRO’s GenCost report highlight significant financial risks. Renewables (solar, wind + storage) remain far cheaper and faster to deploy.
- **Coal and Gas Prolongation**: Extending fossil fuel reliance may face economic headwinds as global markets shift toward cleaner energy, potentially leaving Australia with stranded assets.

### 3. **Climate Commitments**
- **Contradiction with Targets**: The strategy undermines Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction (43%) and renewable energy (82%) goals. Delaying renewables for nuclear and fossil fuels risks missing these targets.
- **Net Zero by 2050**: While nuclear could theoretically contribute to net zero, its delayed rollout (2040s) leaves little room for error, especially if coal/gas use persists.

### 4. **Energy Security Argument**
- **Renewables + Storage**: Australia already has robust renewable resources (solar, wind) and is advancing battery/grid storage. Nuclear’s "baseload" argument is weakening as renewables prove capable of reliable supply.
- **National Security**: Linking nuclear to energy security is debatable—renewables offer decentralized, resilient grids less vulnerable to geopolitical risks (e.g., fuel supply chains).

### 5. **Industry Influence**
- **IPA and Fossil Fuel Interests**: The involvement of conservative think tanks and coal executives suggests this strategy may prioritize ideological or industry interests over evidence-based policy.
- **Nuclear Advocacy**: Pro-nuclear voices (e.g., Stephen Wilson) are influential but face stiff opposition from experts who favor renewables for cost and speed.

### **Conclusion: Is This Strategy Reasonable?**
- **From a Climate/Economic Perspective**: No. It delays cheaper, proven renewables in favor of expensive, delayed nuclear while prolonging high-emission fuels. CSIRO and global trends support renewables as the most viable path.
- **From a Political/Industry Perspective**: Perhaps, if the goal is to protect fossil fuel interests and push a conservative energy agenda. However, it risks locking Australia into a high-cost, high-emission pathway.

### **Alternative Approach**
A more pragmatic strategy might:
1. **Accelerate renewables + storage** to meet 2030 targets.
2. **Phase out coal/gas** in line with climate goals.
3. **Research nuclear** for potential post-2040 use, but not at the expense of immediate decarbonization.

This strategy appears more ideological than practical, and its success hinges on political wins and overcoming significant economic and technical hurdles.