In Australia, energy crisis provokes heated debate about nuclear energy | Economy

Mudgee, New South Wales, Australia – Mount Piper coal-fired power station is just 25 km (15 miles) west of one of Australia’s most beautiful natural landscapes, the Blue Mountains National Park, known for its spectacular eucalyptus-covered canyons, sandstone cliffs and waterfalls.

The facility, situated in a mountainous, drought-prone region, is one of seven sites where Conservative opposition leader Peter Dutton plans to build Australia’s first nuclear power stations if his Liberal and National Party coalition wins next year’s federal election. year.

Dutton argued that the current centre-left Labor government will not be able to meet its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 with renewables such as wind alone. and solar.

“I want to make sure the Australian public understands today that we have a vision for our country to provide cleaner electricity, cheaper electricity and consistent electricity,” Dutton told reporters last month.

For many Australians, Dutton’s proposals lit a match in a discussion they assumed had been closed decades ago.

In 1998, a previous Conservative government banned nuclear power in favor of coal, a commodity that remains Australia’s second most valuable export after iron ore – the fuel last year accounted for 15 percent of total exports. , worth around A$102 billion ($68 billion). .

But since 2006, conservative parties have periodically called for a new debate on the nuclear issue – although never seriously while in power between 2013-2022.

Under the current government’s plans, Australia is one of the few major economies that does not use, or plans to use, nuclear energy to provide guaranteed energy to support renewable sources such as solar and wind.

In Blue Mountains communities such as Lithgow, a gentrifying town that was once home to more than a dozen coal mines, nuclear proposals have elicited mixed reactions.

Larissa Edwards, one of a growing number of “tree changers” who have moved to Lithgow to escape city life, said she was horrified when she heard about the plans.

“I came because it’s a beautiful and special part of the world,” Edwards told Al Jazeera.

“I was really amazed. It’s an obvious point to Dutton’s plan, which he had signaled to some extent. But with the whole area moving to renewable energy, I was still shocked,” she said.

“I don’t think it’s the right solution to the energy crisis, nor to the climate crisis that we find ourselves in.”

However, coal miners in Lithgow who spoke to Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity expressed hope that a nuclear facility would bring new jobs for the next generation following the closure of all but three of the town’s mines.

While there is a divide between those who prioritize the economy versus the environment, there is widespread consternation over the lack of consultation before the announcement, or a detailed estimate of costs that are expected to be in the billions of dollars.

“The polling I have done so far is on the ground in the Lithgow area and from what I can tell there is already a strong divide between those who support a reactor and those who oppose it, with a lot of people in the middle calling for more details and information,” Andrew Gee, an independent MP who represents the region, told Al Jazeera.

“The community cannot be expected to make an informed choice on this issue if there is no consultation and the community simply does not have the facts. Nor can their leaders be expected to do so.”

The governments of the affected states in Australia’s federated model gave a resounding “no” to Dutton’s nuclear plans.

Three of the five states with sites in the plan – New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland – ban the construction of nuclear facilities.

Another obstacle is that the proposed sites are privately owned and, in most cases, have prior commitments for renewable energy projects.

“It clearly has a fundamentally political objective, which is to differentiate the opposition on energy policy, and it has been successful so far, insofar as the government has not yet worked out what its reaction should be,” Tony Wood, the director of the department of energy. program at the Grattan Institute think tank, told Al Jazeera.

All of the chosen locations are home to old coal-fired power plants, which the incumbent government has promised to phase out as quickly as possible.

On an optimistic schedule, nuclear energy would take at least 10-15 years to come into operation.

Critics consider the policy to be aimed at supporting Dutton’s coalition members in constituencies where communities are concerned about the economic impact of the coal transition, as well as leveraging a backlash in regional areas against what many rural residents consider unsavory coal projects. renewable energy.

At the heart of the debate are questions about the economic viability of renewables as Australia transitions to net-zero emissions by 2050, a commitment supported by both major parties.

While policymakers are tasked with finding the most effective solutions for the country’s energy grid, they must also take into account Australian voters’ sensitivity to rising energy bills.

Energy demand in Australia is predicted to double by 2050, according to a report released last month by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO).

Its main message was to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy.

“This does not improve the cost of living at all. It could even make the situation worse, because it creates uncertainty,” said Wood, of the Grattan Institute, about the nuclear proposals.

Other critics have expressed concern about the lack of any plan for nuclear waste.

“I am concerned about the way things will be transported through the area and the storage of waste and the impact that could have on an area that is so close to our World Heritage environment,” Lithgow resident Edwards said. .

Such fears have been heightened politically by the fact that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has not yet said where waste from Australia’s planned fleet of nuclear submarines, the first of which is not expected to arrive until 2030, will be stored.

“This is something that Australia will have to resolve, and it has proven to be very politically thorny in the past and I don’t see that changing,” Ebony Bennett, deputy director of the Australia Institute think tank, told Al Jazeera. .

There are also questions about what kind of nuclear technology – from large-scale plants to emerging but largely untested small modular reactors and next-generation sodium-cooled fast reactors – would be best suited to drought-prone Australia.

The first reactor using this latest technology, developed by US company TerraPower, opened last month in the US state of Wyoming.

In a recent policy paper, Ken Baldwin, a professor at the Australian National University’s Research School of Physics, argued that all options should be able to compete on a level playing field if there was “even a small chance that nuclear power could fill the gap of reliability”. in a 100% clean energy system.”

“This is a strong argument – ​​currently favored by public opinion – for removing Australia’s legislated ban on nuclear energy, so that the nation can evaluate the best option without having one hand tied behind its back,” Baldwin wrote.

Today, however, it is clear that investors, in an energy sector that has been privatized for decades, do not consider nuclear energy viable in Australia.

“Most of the companies I’ve spoken to and state governments pushing renewables will continue despite what an opposition would do in government,” Wood said.

Perhaps for this reason, Dutton’s proposals envisage state ownership, an unexpected reversal for a party that advocated the privatization of the energy grid.

With Australia struggling to maintain the pace needed to meet its target of net-zero emissions by 2050, the nuclear option has so far had little traction outside conservative political circles and the media.

While Dutton and his allies continue to champion nuclear power, the still-elusive price tag, above all, could prove to be the proposals’ undoing.

The AEMO report concluded that nuclear power was “one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity”.

“I think the economic situation probably wasn’t very good 20 years ago and it’s even worse now,” said the Australian Institute’s Bennett.

“There was enormous opposition from the community [then]. The reality is that we have missed the nuclear boat, if there ever was a boat to catch.”