Skip to main content
The Markets by Proactive
Go to Proactive UK
Proactive UK has moved. Proactive’s coverage of London’s small caps continues on proactiveinvestors.com Go there →
Advertisement
The Markets
by Proactive
Proactive UK has moved.
Coverage of London’s small caps continues on proactiveinvestors.com
Go to Proactive UK
The Markets
by Proactive
Proactive UK has moved.
Small-cap coverage continues on .com
Go to Proactive UK
Advertisement
The Markets
by Proactive
Proactive UK has moved.
Small-cap coverage continues on .com
Go to Proactive UK

Renewables & cleantech

Chris Bowen's five reasons why nuclear is wrong for Australia

After 10 years of denial and delay on climate action, Chris Bowen, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, says he is not interested in more years of distraction by nuclear energy — an energy source that “clearly doesn’t stack up for our country”.

Responding to the Australian Financial Review’s question of why nuclear power isn’t the right Australia, Bowen states that given Australia's abundant renewable resources and the urgent need for emission reductions, the focus should instead be on proven, cost-effective renewable energy solutions

He outlined five “serious answers” around how nuclear energy poses several challenges and why it is the wrong solution for Australia.

  • Cost: Numerous studies, including one by the CSIRO and Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), find nuclear energy to be the most expensive form of energy. AEMO also clarifies that their report accounts for all costs, including transmission and storage, and still finds renewables to be more cost-effective than nuclear.
  • Technological readiness: Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), a form of nuclear technology, are still largely untested commercially. Currently, there are only two demonstration plants, one in Russia and one in China.
  • Timeframe: Nuclear plants are notoriously slow to build. Given their long construction times, it's unlikely that Australia could have an operational nuclear facility by the early or mid-2030s, a timeline inconsistent with urgent emission-reduction goals.
  • Flexibility: Nuclear power stations cannot be easily turned on and off to match fluctuating energy demand, making them less suitable as back-up for renewable energy sources.
  • Waste: SMRs are expected to generate a considerable amount of nuclear waste, complicating waste management and disposal.

When thinking about the conundrum of how we manage this massive transformation to a lower-emissions energy grid, it is hard to think of a more ill-fitting solution for Australia than going down the nuclear road.

Bowen argues that “after 235 years” of searching, Australia found a global comparative advantage in the form of renewable energy and given the cost of nuclear, its slow development and availability, lack of generation flexibility and waste all argue, nuclear should not be in consideration in Australia.

Advertisement
The Markets
by Proactive
Proactive UK has moved.
Small-cap coverage continues on .com
Go to Proactive UK