The perfectly inevitable failure of weather-dependent wind and solar has made way for the perfectly inevitable rise of nuclear power as the premier generation source of the future.
Anyone with their snouts in the wind and solar subsidy trough hates nuclear power for the same reasons we promote it: it works 24 x 365, whatever the weather and delivers power that people can afford around the clock. Moreover, for those worked up about carbon oxide gas emissions, nuclear is the only stand-alone generation source that does not emit CO2 in the process.
Sure, places like Australia with abundant coal reserves will be using coal-fired power for generations to come. But that’s not a reason to reject a nuclear-powered future. Especially in a country like Australia which holds the world’s largest uranium reserves and, despite its shifting policy of limiting the number of mines and states that have banned them, is the world’s third-largest uranium exporter.
That Australia, among the world’s largest uranium exporters, doesn’t rely on nuclear power astonishes those from the 30 countries where you’ll find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – including the French, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese. Another 15 countries are currently building 60 reactors among them. Nuclear power output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production. But not a lick of it in Australia.
The benefits of nuclear power are obvious to any sentient being with even a modicum of curiosity about where their power comes from. Cristina Talacko is one such character. Her road to Damascus moment is laid out in the piece below, in which Cristina headlines the reasons why a nuclear-powered future is not only obvious but perfectly inevitable.
Embracing Nuclear energy: my journey from sceptic to advocate
The Spectator
Cristina Talacko
20 June 2024
Eighteen months ago, I embarked on a journey to the United States and Canada with the Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Ted O’Brien, driven by my commitment to environmental causes and a burning question: How can we decarbonise Australia in a way that’s sustainable and reliable?
As someone who has always supported renewable energy, this journey was a significant pivot for me. I had begun to see the limitations of relying solely on intermittent renewable sources and felt compelled to explore nuclear energy as a potential solution.
Convincing my Coalition for Conservation Board was no easy task. Nuclear energy has been a contentious issue in Australia for decades, and most of our donors were staunch supporters of renewables. This shift in focus posed significant risks, but I believed it was worth it. So, alongside Ted and three other energy experts, I set out on a trip that would change my perspective entirely.
In Washington DC, our meetings with the Department of Energy (DOE) were eye-opening. The bipartisan support for nuclear power was unexpected and encouraging. We spoke with Democrats, Republicans, and think tanks like ClearPath and Third Way, all of whom agreed on the need for advanced nuclear energy. Their conviction that nuclear is crucial for a cost-effective and timely transition to Net Zero was compelling.
Our visits to industry giants like GE Hitachi, Westinghouse, and new players like TerraPower, X-Energy were equally enlightening. The technological advancements and benefits of nuclear power were impressive, making it difficult for me to understand why Australia maintains its ban. Ted and I asked every possible question about waste management, safety, costs, and policy. We left no stone unturned.
A stop in Paris to meet with the International Energy Agency (IEA) added another layer of insight. The Energy Markets Director’s assertion that ‘there is no Net Zero without nuclear’ struck a chord with me. Australia’s reliance on intermittent renewables seemed increasingly precarious, and the IEA’s endorsement of nuclear as a necessary component of a balanced energy mix was a wake-up call.
Returning to Australia, I prepared a detailed report for the Coalition for Conservation Board. The findings from our trip were clear and compelling:
Bipartisan Acknowledgement: In both the US and Canada, there’s bipartisan recognition that renewables will play a big role in future energy systems. Policymakers on both sides have ‘done the math’ and understand that an expansion of nuclear energy is vital for a cheaper, faster, smoother transition to Net Zero. Not all policymakers like nuclear energy, but they recognise that the transition cannot be made harder by playing favourites with technologies. No one we spoke to in policy and environmental advocacy circles, from either the centre-left or centre-right, believed 100 per cent renewable energy was practically achievable.
Economic Viability: Through world-class nuclear operations practices in both countries and due to its incomparable energy density, we learned that existing nuclear energy is the cheapest form of zero-emissions electricity in many markets, except for legacy hydro in some regions. In some markets, nuclear is cheaper than gas and coal. US and Canadian policymakers understand that how well projects are delivered is a key determinant of the cost of nuclear electricity, and there is clear evidence of more thoughtful project delivery after cost overruns at recent US nuclear projects. This includes completing the design before beginning construction, constructability planning, and more collaborative contracting. US and Canadian policymakers are focused on total system costs, not just the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for individual technologies. Regulators in both nations are working to reduce the cost and duration of licensing.
Clean Energy Label: Nuclear energy has access to the same production tax credits and investment tax credits (federally) that solar, wind, and geothermal do. These incentives, massively expanded through the recent Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), apply to existing and planned nuclear energy investments. Nuclear energy finally has a level playing field in the US and has recently become eligible for low-cost funding through the Canadian Infrastructure Bank’s clean energy mandate.
Advanced and Small Reactors: The US is placing very large bets on the first wave of advanced and small reactors, providing billions of dollars in direct funding to ensure that three full-scale demonstration plants are built by the end of this decade. These plants will go into commercial operation once built. In addition to this direct funding, the DOE is providing funding-in-kind to several other technology developers through funded access to the US National Labs system for R&D and paying for early engagement with the NRC to smooth the regulatory pathway.
Energy Security as National Security: The need for energy security was explained to us in every single meeting. Energy security has many different components, including grid resilience, fuel price and availability, technology supply chains monopolised by non-allies, vulnerability to unusual weather events, and ensuring the energy security of allies. Fuel and technology diversity is a key pillar of energy security for many nations, not just the US and Canada. It is also clear that Australia isn’t taking energy security seriously.
High Energy-IQ Communities: Locations, where many people understand where energy comes from and have the skills to economically benefit from their energy literacy, stand to attract the most investment. This includes energy-exporting states like Wyoming, West Virginia, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Local leadership in these communities understands the economic importance of energy and is positioning their states and provinces to retain energy leadership by supporting nuclear investment. Even Alaska communities have embraced nuclear.
Quality Jobs: Nuclear projects and operations require highly sophisticated training facilities, state-of-the-art robotics, advanced manufacturing, and a highly trained workforce. This means that nuclear workers are very well paid, and the SMEs that support the nuclear industries are profitable. Nuclear power plants last for decades, with several existing NPPs planning for an 80-year service life. These are multi-generational jobs. Engineers, trades, and workers from other heavy sectors can become nuclear-proficient very quickly. ‘You can tell who the nuclear workers are; they have a new truck and boat in the driveway and a cabin or holiday house on the lake.’ – Todd Smith, Ontario Energy Minister.
Private Capital: There is significant private capital being directed towards nuclear across the entire value chain. The last nuclear renaissance in the first decade of this century was underwhelming and only driven by large utilities. It was also characterised by poor project performance on new builds in Western nations (not in Asian countries, which successfully delivered many reactors). This time it’s different. The drive to decarbonise economies, leading to deep and durable political support, is a key differentiator. Others include the broad range of reactor sizes, applications (heat, hydrogen, remote communities), and many new players in the industry on both the technology side and the customer side. It’s not just large utilities this time.
Maximising Existing Infrastructure: The US and Canada are not rewiring their nations extensively. Communities are close to reaching their limit of what is acceptable in terms of new wind, solar, and transmission networks. Extensive new transmission build-out is viewed as expensive, difficult, and unnecessary. Because of the way transmission investment is paid for by electricity consumers, the structural price increases necessary to compensate transmission owners are politically contentious, especially when utilisation is factored in. Maximising the use of existing transmission by replacing coal with nuclear plants was highlighted as a key strategy of both nations.
Australia as a Preferred Partner: There was a clear interest in working with Australia to add nuclear energy to our national energy mix. There was an acknowledgment that Australia could move faster and more competently than nearly any other non-nuclear nation given our existing expertise and regulatory structures, strong legal system, and high-quality technical workforce. Australia as the natural nuclear gateway to SE Asia and the Pacific Islands, combined with our capacity to be a nuclear skills, services, and components hub, was frequently discussed.
Safety and Waste Concerns: Australian concerns about safety and waste are not widely shared in the US and Canada. Communities that host nuclear power stations, are not concerned about radiation doses received through normal operation and perceive the likelihood of a nuclear accident to be very low. These communities typically have the highest level of knowledge, as nuclear workers come from within their communities and can communicate how safe the technology is. Spent fuel is not a pressing issue since it has been stored without a single incident for many decades in both countries. Canada is making good progress towards selecting a location for its deep geological repository.
Strategic Fuel Supply Chain: A decision to enter the nuclear fuel supply chain is strategic, not economic. Fuel costs contribute very little to the overall price of nuclear electricity (5-8 per cent), and most steps in the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle are supplied as services. While a partially or fully native fuel supply chain is likely to be more expensive than competitively procuring these services within a global market, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is causing a re-think in the US. The relatively minor cost premium to nativise fuel supply is outweighed by the strategic imperative of energy security. Australia has the technological sophistication to enter any part of the fuel supply chain, with enrichment being the most difficult and expensive part.
When the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, announced the Coalition’s first energy policy plan, I felt a profound sense of pride. Despite the initial resistance and the loss of funding from pro-renewable donors, our advocacy for a mixed and diverse energy system had paid off. It was a significant achievement to see at least one side of politics acknowledging the need for a balanced energy mix that ensures a reliable and clean power supply.
Australia’s current stance on nuclear energy is increasingly untenable. The Albanese government’s signing of the Framework for Prosperity, which supports the adoption of nuclear SMRs in the Indo-Pacific region, stands in contrast to its domestic campaign against nuclear energy. This dichotomy is perplexing and suggests a double standard that undermines Australia’s potential leadership in the global nuclear landscape.
As the world embraces nuclear energy for its safety, affordability, and reliability, Australia’s continued ban isolates us from our neighbours and limits our ability to achieve true energy security. The Prime Minister and Australian climate and environmental agencies’ fear-mongering tactics do a disservice to the informed and science-based discussions we need. Australians are capable of discerning the facts and recognising the successes of nuclear power in many G20 countries.
It’s time for our leaders to rise above misinformation and engage in honest, constructive debates about nuclear energy. We owe it to ourselves to explore all viable options for a sustainable and secure energy future.
The Spectator
STOP THESE THINGS 
“Even Alaska communities have embraced nuclear.” No duh! They already knew that solar would not do the trick.
Cost overruns in Western nuclear reactor construction projects are not really due to starting construction before design is finished. They’re the result of activists demanding pointless changes, in the hope of stopping the project entirely, and courts and regulatory agencies acquiescing. One example is from the new Vogtle plant: When vibration was detected in a pipe during initial hydraulic tests, in a normal industrial setting it would have been addressed by a $30,000 pipe brace. But at Vogtle it was addressed by a $3 million license revision.
Spent nuclear fuel shouldn’t simply be stored. It’s composed of 5% fission products, and 95% unused fuel. Fission products are dangerously radioactive for 300 years. Unused fuel is dangerously radioactive for 300,000 years. Rather than storing it, a more sensible solution is to separate fission products from unused fuel, store the fission products, and convert the unused fuel into fission products and energy. Among fission products, only caesium and strontium need 300 year storage. Half the rest are innocuous before thirty years, and the remainder isn’t even radioactive. These separations reduce the storage amount by a factor of 200, and the duration by a factor of 1,000. The pyroelectric separation method developed for Experimental Breeder Reactor II, as described by Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang in “Plentiful Energy” is the best method. If you don’t want to buy it from Amazon, Dr. Chang has generously given permission to link a PDF from http://vandyke.mynetgear.com/Nuclear.html
American development of nuclear power being comatose for half of a century can be laid entirely at the doorstep of the Democrat party. They were the ones who destroyed “the best research reactor ever built” (in the words of Nobel Physics Laureate Hans Bethe) at EBR-II in 1993 (John Kerry cast the deciding vote). They didn’t simply defund and stop the research program. In a fit of spite, they destroyed the reactor and filled the cavity with concrete just to make sure DoE couldn’t build a new one there. When Bill Cliton’s science advisor Frank von Hippel was told it would cost more to cancel the research program and destroy the reactor than to finish the research program, he said “I know; it’s a symbol. It has to go.”
Does Australia have such an evil pair?