‘Green’ Energy Suicide: Australia’s Anti-Nuclear Power Stance Beggars Belief

Australia’s politics is bereft of leadership and there’s no better example thereof than the failure to advance nuclear power in this country. Notwithstanding the unfolding power pricing and supply calamity – driven by chaotically intermittent and heavily subsidised wind and solar – its new Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, more Elmer Fudd than Bob Hawke, refuses to even discuss the prospect of nuclear power generation, and is left to waffle about mythical battery storage and pie-in-the-sky ‘green’ hydrogen schemes somehow saving his country from the consequence of attempting to rely upon the perpetually unreliable.

The Labor/Green Alliance will always run the anti-nuke mantra – they’re far too invested (literally and figuratively) in the mythical ‘transition’ to an all wind and sun-powered future.

The Australian voting public, on the other hand, is decidedly in favour of a nuclear-powered future, and has been for some time.

Most Australians want nuclear power to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants – but the Greens will never let it happen
Daily Mail
David Southwell
6 June 2022

Most Australians want a nuclear power industry to reduce emissions by scrapping coal-fired plants, but it’s unlikely to happen because politicians don’t agree.

A poll found 53 per cent in Australians support ‘building nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce emissions’ and only 23 pre cent opposed.

Even Greens voters, whose party is fundamentally opposed to it, are warming to the idea with 44 per cent in favour compared to 30 per cent opposed.

The nuclear option also gathered 70 per cent approval from Coalition voters, with 13 per cent opposed, and 52 per cent from Labor supporters while 27 per cent opposed.

Daniel Wild, director of research at right-wing think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs, which commissioned the study, said politicians should unite on the issue.

‘Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton should come together and show leadership to repeal the ban on nuclear power in Australia, which can provide low-cost and reliable base-load power,’ he said.

Although there are growing signs that the Coalition will look into nuclear options to provide clean energy, there has been no sign of a policy change from Labor and definitely not from the Greens, who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

In their policy statements, the Greens declare they want a world free of nuclear power and the cessation of Australian uranium mining and exports.

Greens leader Adam Bandt said last year that the Morrison Government’s decision to buy nuclear submarines put ‘floating Chernobyls’ in the heart of major cities.

The Greens control 10 seats in the Senate after increasing their numbers at the election, giving them the balance of power and ability to block legislation unless both major parties agree to it.

However, in Finland the Green Party voted to endorse nuclear power as a low-emissions energy source.

Nationals Leader David Littleproud has argued high energy prices are a result of the climate change net zero emissions by 2050 target.

He said Australia needed to have a conversation about nuclear power, arguing the fear associated with the power source was irrational and actually fed by a cartoon.

‘We did extensive polling and understood that it wasn’t as popular because … people were getting their information from what they saw on Chernobyl, Fukushima, and also The Simpsons,’ Mr Littepround told Sky News.

‘There’s this perception that’s been put around nuclear… etched into folklore from cartoons.’

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton also indicated on Monday the Coalition would look at overturning Australia’s ban on nuclear power.

‘I’m not afraid to have a discussion on nuclear if we want to have legitimate emissions reductions, if we want to lower electricity prices, then that is exactly the path that [French] President [Emmanuel] Macron has embarked on, and [British] Prime Minister [Boris] Johnson is talking about in the UK,’ he told the ABC.

Australian households are being pushed to breaking point by skyrocketing power prices due to outages at coal-fired power stations, the cold weather, and a shortage of gas.

Federal climate change and energy minister Chris Bowen is having an emergency with meeting state counterparts to address the soaring price of gas.

Mr Johnson just announced the UK would build eight new nuclear plants, aiming to finish one a year to reduce their reliance on gas.

The IPA’s poll was conducted in April and surveyed more than 1,000 Australians on their attitudes to nuclear power.
Daily Mail

72% Of Australians Back Dutton On Reliable, Affordable Energy
Institute of Public Affairs
Daniel Wild
31 May 2022

“Close to three-quarters of Australians back Liberal leader Peter Dutton’s focus on reliable and affordable energy supply, which in practice means scrapping the policy of net zero emissions”, said Daniel Wild, Director of Research at the Institute of Public Affairs.

New Liberal leader Peter Dutton stated in a recent interview with Channel 9 that:

For the Liberal Party, we want to make sure that people can afford to turn the lights on, when you turn the lights on there is actually power there. I worry under this government we’re not going to have the reliability in our energy system.”

A recent survey undertaken by the IPA asked over 1,000 Australians what the main focus of Australia’s energy policy should be.

Some 72% of respondents indicated that affordability or reliability should be the focus, while only 28% believe meeting the policy of net zero emissions should be the focus.

“Peter Dutton and David Littleproud need to move on from Scott Morrison’s failed net zero policies – real Australians understand what is at stake,” said Mr Wild.

“Real Australians understand that net zero will make no noticeable difference to the global climate, but will impose significant and irreparable economic and humanitarian damage on Australian workers.”

“The only way to ensure affordable and reliable energy supply is to scrap the policy of net zero emissions by 2050, which is forcing affordable and reliable coal-fired power off the electricity grid.”

Just last week the Australian Energy Regulator released its final default market offer for next financial year which will increase household electricity bills by up to 18 per cent. This equates to around $290 per year on an average household electricity bill of $1,600.

“Real Australians in the suburbs and regions are already paying the price for the policy of net zero, which is a policy designed by and for the cossetted inner-city elites,” said Mr Wild.

“It’s time the new leaders of the Coalition parties learnt the lessons of the election. After failing to be Labor-lite on energy policy in government, real Australians cannot afford the Coalition to be teal-lite on energy during this term of Parliament,” said Mr Wild.
Institute of Public Affairs

Australians Back Nuclear Power
Institute of Public Affairs
Daniel Wild
6 June 2022

A new poll commissioned by free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs has identified that a majority of Australians support building nuclear power plants in Australia.

“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton should come together and show leadership to repeal the ban on nuclear power in Australia, which can provide low-cost and reliable base-load power,” said Daniel Wild, Director of Research at the Institute of Public Affairs.

The poll undertaken in April, with data collected by research and marketing firm Dynata, asked over 1,000 Australians whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “Australia should build nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce carbon emissions”:

  • 53% Agree
  • 24% Neither agree nor disagree
  • 23% Disagree

Section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) prohibits the Minister for Environment from “approving an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of…a nuclear power plant.”

Nuclear power is widely used across the developed world, including in the UK, Canada, the US, and France. Nuclear power currently supplies around 70% of energy in France, 20% in the US, 15% in the UK, and 15% in Canada.

The poll also identified widespread support across party lines for nuclear power:

  • 70% of Coalition voters support building nuclear plants (13% oppose).
  • 52% of Labor voters support building nuclear plants (27% oppose).
  • 44% of Greens voters support building nuclear plants (30% oppose).

“Even more Greens voters support than oppose nuclear power in Australia,” said Mr Wild.

The poll also identified that more Australians across every age group support nuclear than oppose it:

  • 52% of those aged 18-24 and under support building nuclear plants (19% oppose).
  • 47% of those aged 25-54 support building nuclear plants (25% oppose).
  • 62% of those aged 55 and over support building nuclear plants (23% oppose).

Support for nuclear power generation also crosses income groups:

  • 71% of Australians earning $100,000 and over support building nuclear plants (16% oppose).
  • 55% of Australians earning between $45,000 and $99,999 support building nuclear plants (22% oppose).
  • 49% of Australians earning less than $45,000 support building nuclear plants (25% oppose).

“New Nationals leader David Littleproud was spot on when he said earlier this week that Australia must have a ‘mature conversation’ about the future of nuclear power in Australia.”“The current energy crisis in Australia is a design feature of a net zero emissions by 2050 target, that will only be solved by reliable, affordable baseload power from coal and nuclear.”

“We need to have a proper debate about nuclear power and the cost of net zero to Australians living in the suburbs and regions in terms of their livelihoods, cost of living, and the long-term future of their local communities,” said Mr Wild.
Institute of Public Affairs

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Why not nuclear? says:

    I agree. It’s obvious that the silent majoriy is being ignored by the Australian Government (as usual).

    The nuclear power technology that is available today is not the same technology as in the previous millenium, It is a source of clean energy with very low emissions and is an inherently safe technology with minimal environmental impact.

    AEMO has just published its 2022 Integrated System Plan (ISP) which it states “comes at a time when the future of Australia’s energy is a matter of great national urgency”. I find that this statement is the only valid one in the document.

    Sadly, otherwise the document is a political one which panders to the current Government’s lopsided renewables strategy. There is not a single mention of an alternative nuclear energy based solution as an option of the future strategy for our country’s power grid. Instead, billions of dollars of expenditure are recommended on a new renewables based grid. A significant component of which is building transmission lines to remote locations where wind and solar farms will be located. It is a very short sighted and biased view of the future of power generation in this country.

    In terms of value for money, if a nuclear power plant is built at a location where a fossil fuel based power plant has been de-commissioned, the existing switch yard and power transmission lines are already in place. The need for cooling water will also be satisfied as it was for the previous plant. Such an approach would save Australian tax payers billions of dollars versus building transmission lines to “cathedrals in the desert”.

    The Liberal National parties have a much more progressive view of nuclear as a future option for this country. We are small country (population-wise) and cannot affor “pie in the sky” schemes building infrastructure which is not future-proof.

    Once again, Australia risks being left behind due to an ill-informed and biased Government that wants to last more than one term.

    The new Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, has stated that nuclear power is a “complete joke” and is “the most expensive form of energy”. This is a major concern, as it indicates how misinformed the current Government is on this technology.

    I find that an excellent source of unbiased and factual information is available on the website of independent Energy Policy Institute of Australia (EPIA) website which is Australia’s only apolitical, not-for-profit, energy policy body. This institute appears to be largely ignored by the Federal Government as it does not have a green agenda but one based upon economics and engineering.

    In terms of Bowen’s statements, the true facts are quite different as research shows that nuclear power is currently, by far, the cheapest form of power generation available.

  2. Jim Wiegand - Wildlife Biologist says:

    I believe the last election was rigged because there is no good reason the people voted for a green energy whore.

  3. Peter Pronczak says:

    A nuclear plant creates radiation of various types in varying quantities & produces waste of various decaying rates. Today’s technology can reprocess most of that waste & not that far off, will probably reprocess it all.

    If the Minister for Environment can’t sanction a nuclear plant when it appears the majority of the population support a nuclear industry, what does that say for democracy decided by a majority will?
    The population did not decide to support a proxy world war in Ukraine, it was decided by a political executive. So the ability exists to circumvent governing principles if the will exists.

    What the nuclear industry lacks is a celebrity, perhaps an actor or popular singer, to stand up & say they support it. Surely there is someone who isn’t ruled by popular fads or is held like some political party decisions, to popularity rather than being ‘in the public interest’.

    There doesn’t appear to be any statistics on how much energy is consumed by the entertainment industries, or how much social finance is directed towards them; the Olympics for example.
    What will happen in 2032 if the power fails?
    Apart from Adam Bandt, teals & other climateers & anti nuclear protesters haven’t tried to shut Lucas Heights but Bandt wants to; a nuclear plant is a nuclear plant, no matter what it produces (just as guns & bombs kill people regardless of who they are), or protested about the nuclear submarines & foreign nuclear ships that dock in AU that may also be secretly carrying nuclear weapons?
    It all seems a bit too convenient, or as the introduction to the Constitution undeniably reveals, we are not a sovereign nation state.

    Just as fish rot from the head, crime is a top down process. Is it any wonder child care subsidies are rising as the age has been reduced to 3 years: to get kids complying to a government backed system when they’re young? Aristotle said, “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show (give) you the man.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: