Nuclear In The Nationalist Age
Why the pro-nuclear position MUST be adopted by Australian nationalists
Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_
The injection of nuclear energy into the national energy debate by Peter Dutton during the 2025 Federal Election campaign, whilst appreciated by proponents of nuclear power, left much to be desired. The debate surrounding nuclear energy suffered the same pitfalls as the rest of the Liberal campaign; Dutton jumped frantically between surface level talking points hoping for something, anything, to permeate into the minds of the Australian public, all while voters were left wanting for specific details. If there was any broader vision behind the push for nuclear, word of it didn’t escape Liberal Party headquarters.
The current energy debate is saturated with vested interests, including the Clean Energy Council, CSIRO, and Unions, who all benefit from a non-nuclear renewable future. The obfuscation around the details of nuclear energy and the broader transition to renewable energy necessitates a balanced and independent review of Australia’s energy market, evaluating the merits and drawbacks of nuclear energy. Considering the nuclear debate, so pivotal to the security and wallets of all Australians, has been so mishandled by mainstream politicians and commentators, I believe it is a position primed for adoption by the nationalist movement.
In this article I will provide the Australia-first nuclear policy, articulating the broader vision the Liberal Party failed to.
Nationalists need to go Nuclear
In a country with many salient issues around crime, culture and cost of living, a debate over nuclear power may seem to be uninteresting or a distraction. Others might argue that with our vast reserves of coal or our boundless plains and sunny skylines that our energy needs don’t demand a nuclear solution. You would be wrong. Nuclear technologies have had a defining impact on human history and will continue to do so. Australian politics has long been devoid of ambition and a proposal for Australian nuclear power presents us with an opportunity to drive the public psyche towards an embrace of national progress, self-reliance and world leading innovation, an opportunity which we would be foolish to let slip.
In what seems like a modern miracle, Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party of Australia put forward a proposition for a nuclear-powered future in this year’s election. This proposition included overturning the ban on development of nuclear power, which has been in place since 1998, and building seven new power stations across the country as our existing coal-fired power stations reach their expiry. Proponents of both renewable energy and fossil fuels were quick to dismiss the proposal deriding the high capital costs, lack of nuclear expertise and dangerous waste as prohibitive to the development of a nuclear energy industry in Australia – and they are right. The Liberal policy is flawed in many ways, not in the least because it proposes nuclear as a solution to soaring energy prices, without any tangible evidence about how it would solve this problem. The weak framing and cautious experimentation of this policy will inevitably lead us toward a costly and failing energy situation. To capitalise on the opportunities a nuclear future presents Australia, we need to go harder toward a nuclear future than the Liberals propose. If a nuclear energy industry is going to work for Australia, we need to do more than build a couple of reactors, we need to commit economy wide. Timid politics, as we have seen time and time again, leads to terrible outcomes for the average Australian.
Not only do we need a solid commitment to the construction of seven power stations, but we also need government investment towards the development of a nationwide industry. This will require support to build enrichment capabilities, so that our vast uranium reserves can be used here without needing to be sent overseas, suitable institutions for training the next generation of engineers and nuclear physicists and a commitment towards embracing innovative nuclear technologies.
This of course comes with a price tag, and a hefty one, but so is the cost of failure, or even worse – mediocrity. If Australian nationalism is going to triumph, we need a country that is not afraid to be ambitious, we need a country that is not afraid to be inventive, and we need a country that is willing to provide a future for its people. That future is worth investing in, and in this article, I will examine some key reasons why this is a sensible choice for a nationalist Australian future.
Why Nuclear?
I should first point out that this is not an article debating climate change. There are numerous sources which go into detail about the environmental benefits of nuclear power, but I will not dwell on them here. Moreover, the environmental benefits of nuclear energy match that of wind or solar. Regardless of your views on this subject, a nuclear future should not be dependent on an environmental mandate to be successful.
Australia needs to replace its aging coal-fired power stations. Coal-fired power stations typically have a design life of 40 to 50 years, and an average operating life of 29 years. Today, over three quarters of Australia’s coal power stations are operating beyond their design life. This has a significant impact on Australian consumers, with frequent repairs to aging power stations contributing to energy price increases and unexpected outages. As we continue to push these power stations beyond their operational expectations, we can only expect their reliability to decrease. Furthermore, one third of the total National Energy Market is expected to retire by 2040, leaving a major shortfall in baseload power generation; with the remaining facilities facing the problem of having to stabilise an increasingly less stable energy grid. This consistent and reliable power supply (i.e. baseload power) is essential to any robust energy market and shortfalls in this energy supply could significantly hurt consumers.
This context presents Australia with an unparalleled opportunity to overhaul its energy generation capabilities. Coal-fired power was a by-product of the industrial revolution, with the first power station opening in 1882 in London. Despite remarkable technological advancement society wide since then, the operation of a coal-fired power station remains remarkably similar to this day, especially so in coal abundant Australia. Nuclear energy provides all the benefits of coal power - a stable power supply, employment opportunities, limited land use, cheap feedstock - and extends upon these. Nuclear plants have operational lives reaching 80 years, a feedstock which is 14,000 times more energy dense than an equivalent amount of coal, and a capacity factor (the level of actual energy generation divided by the total potential energy generation, basically the percentage of the year the power station is at maximum power) more than double that of a coal-fired power station.
It is often claimed that the economics of nuclear power don’t add up for Australia’s unique geopolitical landscape. The recent GenCost report produced by the CSIRO attempted to quantify the energy costs of many proposed generation technologies for Australia’s future. Whilst large-scale nuclear power was cheaper than both coal and gas generation, with carbon capture technologies, it was still deemed significantly more expensive than solar, wind and gas. This report is oft cited as evidence of the redundancy of nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix, yet there have been many criticisms of this report highlighting how different assumptions about market behaviour, production channels and environmental impact would lead to different conclusions about the net costs. Critically, this report overlooks three important economic considerations that tip the scale in favour of nuclear power.
The first of these is the capital costs of building such nuclear technologies. Building a power plant is an expensive endeavour, and global experience has shown that cost predictions often underestimate the true costs of building this infrastructure. Australia’s situation places us in a unique position though, when it comes to investing in nuclear technology – we are looking to replace our extensive coal powered network. Historically, Australia’s energy generation capacity has been driven by large, centralised power stations which have been sufficient to power our country. Our other energy infrastructure has therefore been specifically designed around this model; power is generated in centralised locations and then distributed along transmission lines to homes across the nation. A nuclear power station operates in a very similar fashion to a coal-fired power station and therefore much of the transmission infrastructure is already built and operational, were the nuclear facilities to be built on existing coal power station sites.
Note:
It should be noted that economic analysis of capital projects, such as the GenCost report, includes analysis that favours shorter-term projects. Behavioural economics, a field that applies experimental psychology to economics, has introduced a concept called ‘present bias’ into the literature of the field. This concept seeks to account for the experimental evidence demonstrating that individuals will prioritise benefits now over larger future benefits. This has led to the inclusion of a discounting factor in economic analyses, which progressively weights future periods as less important (as we perceive the return from these periods to be less important). Therefore, this type of analysis can deliver skewed results when comparing projects with different lifespans, favouring shorter-term projects with smaller upfront costs over projects with a larger benefit window. Whilst this type of analysis is of general benefit to policymakers, its drawbacks should not be understated.
This contrasts with variable renewable energy (VRE) sources such as solar or wind power. These generation technologies are significantly more decentralised and cannot be built on existing coal-fired power station sites, due to the land necessary for solar or wind farms or the environmental requirements for their operation. These technologies will therefore need to be constructed in tandem with new transmission infrastructure and storage technologies to balance their intermittent nature. The cost of such a redesign of our energy infrastructure seems to be consistently underestimated, even as excess solar power has been noted as a contributor to summer blackouts and infrastructure damage. This cost will be passed onto the consumer, with between 40% and 50% of power bills comprising of payments for the maintenance of transmission infrastructure; so, more transmission infrastructure (under a VRE future) will result in higher electricity bills for consumers. The true cost of the transformation of the Australia’s transmission infrastructure to reliably deliver a VRE future is unknown, with conservative estimates presented in the AEMO’s ISP indicating that total network infrastructure costs for the next decade will total $16 billion, although this total is dependent on the nature of projects that are yet to be developed. There is still no doubt that renewable energy remains a cheap source of electricity needs, but maintaining the centralisation of our power generation capability should be a factor in assessing our investment towards future generation technology.
Linking into this is the economic effect of energy price variability on Australia’s industry. Many of Australia’s most critical industries rely heavily on large amounts of electricity. Tomago Aluminium, north of Newcastle in New South Wales, consumes approximately one seventh of all energy produced in NSW for use in its aluminium smelter. Having a stable price is critically important for companies such as this to budget appropriately and remain economically viable. VRE consisting of wind and solar produce cheap power, but the consequence of this is that the amount and cost can fluctuate quite significantly. One analysis by researchers at Griffith University found that the doubling of intraday price volatility over the last five years has cost our metals and mining industry 5% of their total share market value. Nuclear power can be generated regardless of the prevailing weather conditions and offers stable, emissions free power, which is not reflected in its average price. Australian industry will be a critical component of an independent future, yet it remains in decline to this day. A stable power supply offers more confidence to investors looking to invest in power-hungry Australian industries and will be an important consideration in a future where Australia looks to be more self-reliant.
A secondary economic impact of the destruction of Australia’s coal-fired power workforce in a shift toward renewables, will be significant. Across the country from the Latrobe Valley to the Hunter Valley and Gladstone, entire communities have been built around extensive coal mining and export industries. The advent of renewable energy poses an existential threat to these communities and the real possibility of significantly reduced wages and conditions for the many workers within these regions and across the nation. The economic impact of an entire workforce being let go cannot be understated and will threaten the viability of many regional communities. Analysis in The Conversation places the increase to unemployment with the closure of a coal power station across an SA4 of 0.7 percentage points per station closure, or approximately 1,220 people (assuming 290,000 people and a conservative 60% labour force participation rate).This would cause drastic and substantial flow-on costs to regional communities that rely upon mining for a majority of economic activity. Nuclear power stations operate on fundamentally similar principles to coal-fired power stations. They require similar mining processes, similar operational infrastructure and similar transmission capabilities. Replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear offers an opportunity for this workforce to transition immediately into this new industry, using many of the skills and trades which are employed in our current set up. Due to the presence of a strong mining industry, Australia possesses the necessary skills and knowledge required for mega-projects of this scale, ultimately limiting the economic cost of transitioning to nuclear technologies.
Additionally, one common argument in favour of VREs is, as in the word of Chris Bowen, ‘they take their power from the sun and wind’, leading them to have the lowest wholesale price. Whilst this may sound beneficial, it is ultimately a sly statement obscuring the true nature of the National Energy Market (NEM). Whilst the wholesale contract market exists, virtually all energy in Australia is traded on the spot market; where all wholesale providers are paid the spot price (the highest marginal cost of any energy provided to the spot market). For example, if the market needs 200 GWh and there are two suppliers who each can provide half each at a cost of $100/ MWh and $150/ MWh, respectively; both suppliers will be paid at $150/ MWh. Therefore, the supposed wholesale benefits of a VRE only system will only be passed onto the consumer if all energy provided to the spot market is produced by VREs. This, however, is not realistic as it would require a vast oversupply of wind and solar generation (to offset serious capacity restraints). What is more likely, however, is that any market gaps will be filled by gas supply. This will hurt consumers as gas is around twice as expensive as coal, and approximately five times as expensive as solar and wind. Therefore, the owners of large-scale wind and solar projects will benefit substantially if the current function of the NEM’s spot market remains as Australia transitions to a VRE energy market. This would explain the fervent opposition that the Clean Energy Council has against nuclear energy; with the CEC’s board consisting of:
Ross Rolfe AO (Chair): the CEO of Iberdrola, a Spanish offshore wind developer
Angela Catt: the Executive General Manager of Tilt Renewables, an Australian solar and wind developer
Brett Wickham: the Managing Director of Acciona Energia, a Spanish firm that focuses on wind power, solar energy, hydroelectricity, biomass and solar thermal energy
Dennis Freedman: the ANZ Managing Director of Aquila Clean Energy APAC, a Singaporean company focused on solar, wind and battery technologies
Robert Wheals: the CEO of Squadron Energy, an Australian company that focuses on wind, solar, and battery projects
Nuclear Nationalism
Solving the three important economic considerations indicated by the GenCost report with the development of a domestic nuclear energy industry is inherently a nationalistic endeavour. Nuclear presents an opportunity to provide baseload power which supports Australian industrial development, secure employment for Australian workers and a return to future focused national progress. To achieve this vision of stable, cheap and independent energy, we need to implement a nationalised nuclear industry. A true nuclear energy policy should focus on three core areas:
The product: producing clean, cheap, consistent energy
The opportunity: what can we innovate and what can we sell?
The manpower: where do our workers come from?
We are a country blessed with abundant uranium deposits. Currently, this is exported in natural form, for countries overseas to enrich and use in nuclear industries. For nuclear to make sense in Australia, our first focus should be on building enrichment capabilities here. Enriched uranium offers significant potential for Australia as it more than doubles the value of natural uranium. Not only will this allow us to supply our nuclear power stations completely independent of any other nation, but the excess, higher value product can then be exported to maintain (or expand) our market share overseas. An enrichment industry would therefore benefit the country both financially and by providing our citizens with high-paying, skilled work. Both of these factors are critical to our national development as our industrial work continues to dry up and our mining industry undergoes significant change.
The biggest prerequisite for this industry is a nuclear capable workforce, and whilst we have a small number of Australians working for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), we will need significantly more in the future. This presents nationalists with an opportunity. Australia is in the grips of a brain drain, many of our scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs see bigger opportunities available to them in the innovation hubs of Europe and North America. For Australia, this means a generation of aspirational young Australians are being driven overseas, and this deprives us of the innovative spirit we need to develop as a nation. We must work to attract these young professionals back to Australia and encourage the next generation of the science workforce to remain in Australia. One of the biggest barriers to retaining STEM educated graduates is our relative lack of industrial opportunities. A nuclear industry encompassing research, development and commercial operation would be an attractive prospect to address this problem.
Aspirational goals and strong future focused leadership both foster innovation capabilities. There is no better example of this than companies like SpaceX, originating in the innovation hubs of southern California. The introduction of a nuclear industry into the Australian market offers significant prospect for us to be at the forefront of nuclear development. Technologies such as small modular reactors, molten salt reactors and thorium reactors remain underdeveloped ideas with tremendous potential and benefits ranging from portability and scalability to reduced water consumption and a lower risk of nuclear proliferation. Such innovations are in Australia’s own interest, as they could expand nuclear technologies into previously untapped and future markets in Africa, south-east Asia and even Mars. That’s not even to mention the prospect of nuclear fusion as a power source of the future. Proponents of renewables often cite the remarkable innovations in battery technology and solar panel efficiency as reasons to back renewables, yet when it comes to nuclear, the thought of innovation and development is conveniently ignored. Nuclear technologies have a rich future ahead; we can either let the world innovate around us or capitalise on our resource advantages to the benefit of our nation.
Nuclear power is the natural choice for Australia’s nationalist movement. It is a topic that can be freely discussed, has support that bridges the traditional left-right divide and promotes futuristic framing of national ambition and progress. It presents us with an opportunity to drive the public conversation toward a common goal of national development and independence, encourages industrial development and world-leading innovation, all whist securing employment for Australian workers. And that’s an opportunity we would be wrong to let go.