Why can’t nuclear power help Australia solve the climate crisis?

Read on to find out.

I Had To Explain The Energy Transition To My Local Federal MP…

My local Australian Federal MP, a member of the Liberal party (that’s roughly equivalent to Republican / Tory / conservative, for overseas readers) – posted a video on Facebook implying that recent blackouts in the area, as well as increasing energy costs, are Labor’s fault. It accused Labor of making energy security “partisan”, and called for “a mature debate”.

I replied, trying to stay as factual as I could, pointing out that the blackouts in NSW are the result of one third (4 out of 12) of our coal power plants being out of action, nothing to do with (unmentioned but dog-whistled in “Labor’s energy plan”) renewables, and that the finger point for a lack of energy supply likely shouldn’t go to the government that only came into power 2.5 years ago, but the (Liberal + Nationals) one that was in power for the decade before that and did little to prepare for the inevitable exit and breakdown of many ageing coal plants.

He replied – politely, I will say – asking:

Should we be closing coal early and taking it offline?
That is what is in the AEMO plan.

… along with platitudes that he is focused on the future, not what previous governments could have done differently. He also dropped in a recent quote from a very highly-paid, conservative-leaning, and polarising former bigwig of the public service, which included, “We are rushing into a third-world country.”

Here’s the thing about that question, though:
IT’S A TRAP!

Wrapped up in the notion of “early” is some sense that there’s an inherent reason not to close a coal plant before… well, when, exactly?

Anti-climate action folks like to play on this notion imbued in that word “early” to try to make climate action advocates look like we want to waste things, or perhaps even ruin society! (Ye gods, could anything be further from the truth?!)

So, I thought that trap needed addressing.

Now You Can Read About It Too…

Since he’d taken the time to write a polite, sensibly-lengthed reply, and asked a question of me, I took the time to respond in kind, though, admittedly, with a bit of passion thrown in. But I answered his question honestly – and thoroughly – I checked my facts, and I walked through the logic of why nuclear doesn’t get to have a ‘Climate Action’ badge slapped on it in Australia.

Proof-reading it before sending it to Zuck’s cloud, I thought, “Hey this isn’t half bad. Other people might benefit from reading this.” So, here it is. Hope it’s useful to you in understanding and/or explaining to others where we find ourselves.

I wrote…

Thank You For Your Reply

I think it’s important we are clear with people about what “early” means. Early in regards to closing coal plants does not mean “earlier than when the grid is ready”. It means “earlier than when the plant owners currently plan to switch them off”. 

Should we close coal plants “early” if we can? Absolutely! We should be ending all use of fossil fuels AS SOON AS PRACTICAL. Solving the climate crisis depends upon this transition happening right now, and rapidly. We should all be heavily invested in making “as soon as practical” earlier, wherever we can. So yeah, if we can accelerate when we can switch off coal generators, 100% we should do that.

This does not imply putting the grid in a bad state!
It is about accelerating the grid’s transition into a better state, where coal isn’t needed.

How do we bring forward the date when we can safely turn off coal generators? Simply: By accelerating the deployment of firmed renewables and their integration into the grid ASAP.

On nuclear power: It has no role to play in accelerating the transition [in Australia]

Unequivocally. Why?

Currently half of remaining coal fleet owners WANT to retire their plants by 2035, with those closures being voluntarily brought earlier all the time. AEMO’s ISP (that’s the long-term national plan for Australia’s electricity) advises us that, for Australia to meet our climate goals, that needs to be closer to 90% by 2035.

There is no pathway by which starting a nuclear power industry here is going to deliver any power before 2035, and yet ALMOST ALL of our coal should be replaced BEFORE then to meet our goals. That means it can only be replaced by firmed renewables. (Or those who speak on behalf of the gas lobby might say lots more gas, too. But that would be giving up on the climate goals.)

What’s great news is this: Renewables don’t need a debate, don’t need a new industry, don’t need 15+ years of lead time, and don’t need to be 100% bankrolled by taxpayers. Firmed renewables are available now, are cheap, and constantly getting cheaper, and there’s a huge industry and workforce ready and willing to roll them out.

There is a narrative from fossil fuel lobbies and many conservative politicians and pundits, trying to fool people into thinking that the people most vocal about climate action want to do it faster than it’s safe to do. That is a straw man argument.

What people concerned about the future want is to accelerate a safe and just transition, not a transition faster than is practical. That is why all this talk about nuclear is so infuriating and concerning, because a plan for replacing coal with nuclear power in Australia can only achieve delay, not acceleration.

P.S. I think talk of Australia becoming a third-world nation is farcical hyperbole, and I don’t think it belongs in a mature debate, as your video calls for.