Peter Dutton believes he can turn Australia into a nuclear powerhouse with several plants installed around the country to replace coal fired stations, provide an alternative to green energy, and drive down electricity prices.
But Australia has been down this road before — many, many times. Crikey looks back at decades of the nation attempting to go nuclear.
1952
South Australian premier Thomas Playford was one of Australia’s earliest nuclear proponents, naming the “shores of the Spencer Gulf” as his preferred site for a plant. In an April 4, 1952 article in The Advertiser, the Liberal and Country League leader was quoted as saying atomic energy was not “something for the dim and distant future … it could be developed here in the next 10 years”.
The Advertiser reporter went further, stating that “South Australia stands at the threshold of an era of new development and progress that would have seemed impossible a few years ago … it may take all of the 10 years, or perhaps longer, before atomic energy here is an established fact, but there is no reason to suppose that Mr Playford spoke rashly in either of his predictions”.
The project never got off the ground.
1969
In a 1969 election speech, the incumbent Liberal prime minister John Gorton declared: “We shall, during the next Parliament, take Australia into the atomic age by beginning the construction of an atomic plant at Jervis Bay, to generate electricity. We believe that Australia will make increasing use of atomic power in the years ahead and that the time for this nation to enter the atomic age has now arrived.”
Having scraped by in that year’s election to retain his office, Gorton set about realising his plan, seeking expressions of interest for the Jervis Bay plant and closing tenders the following year. The Illawarra Mercury reported in February 1970 that the Jervis Bay plant would be the “first of 20 atomic plants costing more than $2,000 million to be built in Australia by 1990”.
But as so often happens in Australia, a party leadership spill got in the way. By 1971, William McMahon had been selected as Liberal leader and prime minister, and he cancelled the nuclear project in June.
1979
A decade after Jervis Bay, West Australian premier Charles Court began looking at potential sites for a nuclear power plant out west. That project wasn’t fully revealed until three decades later, when state cabinet documents were released to journalists under a 30-year secrecy rule. ABC News reported in 2010 the Liberal premier had serious plans to build a nuclear power station by the turn of the century.
“Looking for future sites for power stations 20 to 30 years ahead, so that land could be reserved, and the cabinet documents do mention that nuclear power could be an option,” one of Court’s state ministers told the ABC.
The project never went ahead.
1980
Around the same time as the West Australian plans were being made, Liberal-led Victoria was also eyed as a potential nuclear state. As journalism academic Bill Birnbauer wrote in Crikey in 2011, documents from the former State Electricity Commission released under freedom of information laws in the mid-1980s “highlighted more than 20 years of research by the state’s power authority and show just how enthusiastic the agency was in pursuing a nuclear future”.
Portland, on Victoria’s south-west coast, was mentioned as one of the potential sites for a station that would have been operational by the year 2000.
In 1982, Labor was elected to state government after nearly three decades in opposition, and by 1983, legislation had been enacted that prohibited the construction and operation of nuclear power stations in the state.
2006
In the dying years of the Howard government, the prime minister called for a “full-blooded” debate about establishing a nuclear power industry in Australia. While his finance minister Nick Minchin believed nuclear power might not be economically viable for up to a century, another colleague, resources minister Ian Macfarlane, believed an industry focused on enriching uranium could be “only five to 10 years away”, the Australian Associated Press reported at the time.
That same year, Howard announced a uranium and nuclear energy task force chaired by nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski. The report, delivered in November of that year, found Australia would need to build 25 nuclear reactors to produce a third of the country’s electricity by 2050. “The controversial report found nuclear reactors would need to be built close to population centres, mainly on the east coast, but that nuclear power would not be competitive with coal unless a price was placed on carbon emissions,” the AAP reported.
Labor declared the 2007 election would be a “referendum on nuclear power”, and Kevin Rudd attacked Howard’s atomic ambitions on the campaign trail. In 2008, prime minister Rudd reiterated that Australia had “a huge range of energy options available … beyond nuclear with which and through which we can respond to the climate change challenge”.
2015
In 2015, a royal commission was established to look at the prospects of establishing a nuclear power industry in South Australia. When the report was released the following year, it stated “it would not be commercially viable to develop a nuclear power plant in South Australia beyond 2030 under current market rules”.
2017-2022
In the years that followed the South Australian royal commission, the nuclear debate was reignited several times, in several jurisdictions: NSW deputy premier John Barilaro, of the National Party, called for nuclear power to be “part of the debate” about the state’s energy supply in 2017; a federal parliamentary committee recommended Australia consider the idea again in 2019; NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham sought to repeal a NSW prohibition on nuclear energy in 2019; a Victorian parliamentary committee found in 2020 that “without subsidisation a nuclear power industry will remain economically unviable in Australia for now”; and Nationals MP Matt Canavan sought to repeal a federal prohibition on nuclear power in 2022.
The Coalition doesn’t want Australia to go nuclear. None its pollies would know a neutron from a neutrino, hence their advocacy for vapourware. That alone will serve their purpose.
Herr Karteffelkopf, a shameless and amoral opportunist who would prostitute Australia for more political power, wants to:
Indeed. “Peter Dutton believes”… does he believe anything? Except his lust for power of course (and I don’t mean electric power).
absolutely agree Entropy.
Schickltuber is truly a policy-free zone, and he’ll give anything a whirl to see if it can possibly hurt, wreck, wedge, knacker or mangle. Along the way, any collateral damage done to the country, or any of its people, is neither here nor there.
i read somewhere recently, a journo propose there were two stripes of pollie: those in it for what they can do, and others for what they can be.
Spudly Do-wrong is all about claiming the prize, and everything else can go to hell. He is, in many ways, another FauxMo, only with a truncheon instead of a marketing manual.
We are a bit short of lollies who want to do something for the good of the nation as a whole. Scrutinise the alternatives carefully for next election. The 2 majors are now too corrupt to consider.
“Spudly Do-wrong … is, in many ways, another FauxMo, only with a truncheon instead of a marketing manual.”
Chef’s kiss
5) Play to the egos of people like you and Crikey readers who can act ‘oh-so-clever’/chortle chortle’ about actual nuclear physics….
And 5) has been probably the most successful strategy for populists and vested interests for decades.
Indeed it was what made the climate change denialism so effective because it invited people (most of whom were not climate scientists) to debate climate change v solutions to climate change.
And those people (most of whom were not climate scientists) loved debating climate change (v solutions to climate change) because:
a) it made them sound clever; and
b) they mostly lacked the practical skills to offer solutions to climate change (other than carbon offsets).
In short, this tactic draws out the chattering classes.
Personally I think Labor should just call Dutton’s bluff and say let’s get on with nuclear. No more debating, no more chattering, and most importantly no more fossil fuel projects…..
Albanese should declare no more fossil fuel projects, but not at the price of flushing tens to hundreds of billions down the nuclear power toilet.
Lucky those tens to hundreds of billions are not real money….
They can come from the same budget as the AUKUS budget.
Remember: governments always have trillions never millions of dollars.
It is very unclear what relevance “nuclear physics” has to the discussion.
I don’t believe anyone is denying the fact that nuclear power stations exist.
I don’t believe you’re that interested in having discussion which is why you always selectively quote the least relevant parts of comments and drag people off in some tangent.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You raise this point about “nuclear physics” repeatedly, so clearly you think it’s important, yet its relevance is elusive.
Nobody disputes it’s possible to generate electricity from nuclear. The question is whether or not that’s the best way to do it in this country – and the evidence mostly points to “not”.
It can be inferred that, given your disdain for people who are not climate scientists debating climate change, you are a nuclear physicist.
And if you are not a nuclear physicist and you care to make comment about the merits of nuclear power, then you are nothing more than a hypocrite who deserves the same disdain that you have for those who dare to take an interest in important public discourse.
You are in very great danger of becoming the very thing that you despise – in fact it’s probably too late.
Oh stop being so defensive…
The point is that we never (at least to the same degree) debated the science of smoking causing cancer, or most other science.
The climate change ‘debate’ was a deliberate strategy by the fossil fuel industry to draw randomers to debate climate science v solutions to climate change.
For example the debate should never have been about climate change but whether having solar panels on your roof is cheaper than paying for fossil fuel generated power. The latter being a no brainer would’ve end the debate.
We all need to be mindful of our blind spots, biases and egos because these are the things that these groups exploit.
The long campaign of “debating” the connection between smoking and cancer is how the model for “debating” climate change was developed and honed. Indeed, some of the same people were involved in both.
Yes….(it’s such hard work with you)….but the ‘debate’ on tobacco did not last as long nor was it as effective dragging in randomers and TV personalities and newspaper owners.
By the 1960s the link with cancer was largely accepted by the mainstream, regulation started in the 1970s with advertising bans, smoking bans were introduced in the 80s and 90s, and plain packaging in the 00s.
Applying that timeline to fossil fuels we should be at a stage by now of plain packaging and a ban.
Also if we all know that’s what the tobacco industry and now fossil fuel industry do, why do we keep falling for it?
Ego.
The same reason you like to pretend to debate online. You want to show off how clever you are even if it doesn’t add anything to the debate.
Well that’s what the fossil fuel industry is praying on.
I don’t think tobacco and fossil fuels are comparable in the way you are comparing them.
I have no climate qualifications, but I like debating climate science because it’s about the future of life on the planet. What’s your area of expertise?
But what’s there to debate?
Actual climate scientists have identified the risk, any debate should be about responding to that risk.
Every piece of commentary, every focus should be focused on solutions.
“The latest on wind tech will blow your mind”
“Communities demand governments to call in the army”
“10 designs for flood plains”
“How the 15 minute cities reduce emissions”
“Here’s how we’ll power AI”
NOT
“Here’s a round up of what denialists have to say about climate change”
OR
“Nuclear. Ha ha ha ha ha ha”
Typically, you’ve not answered a question, this being “What’s your area of expertise?”, but deflected with smartar$ery…. Or is that your answer?
My area of expertise is clearly not in any of these areas!
Do you actually disagree with what I’m saying?
Don’t debate climate change/debate solutions???
After climate scientists identified the problems, risks and mitigation strategies, it was up to politicians (and the public) to decide what to do about any of that. Similarly nuclear scientists have shown since the 40s that nuclear energy is possible, but again, it’s up to the politicians and the rest of us to debate whether we can afford it or not. Given the immense cost and time blowouts all over the world plus the eventual massive cleanup costs, and that other scientists and engineers have said that there are cheaper, viable alternatives, surely only a fool would embark on one, let alone the five that dud Dutton and the libs are advocating for.
This article is a symptom of their strategy, have all things nuclear through ‘talking points’ occupy the media space, get to esp. low info voters talking about it, while disappearing &/or denigrating renewable sources, EVs, climate science, solar panels, batteries etc.
Quietly alarmed how effective the RW MSM & influencers are in holding up any progress in low info Oz vs. elsewhere where renewables are charging ahead, because of economics and effectiveness. Know rusted on older ALP voters who are sounding more RW &/or nativist than their LNP counterparts on many same issues…. great outcome for MSM, LNP and think tanks to delay change and progress.
Beyond the joys of divisive dog-whistling, just what does Spud ‘believe’? I’d hate to have to go ‘in there’ to find out.
I’m assuming by his “policies” that he believes mashed is better than baked.
Or microwaived.
The ’50s and ’60s – maybe at a stretch ’70s – were the time to do it.
But not now.
Exactly. We’re 40 years, give or take, too late for Nuclear Power plants. And starting to build one now would mean we’d once again be 20, 30 or more years too late by the time it was complete to successfully reduce emissions and help reverse climate change. In fact the construction of such a power plant would probably negatively impact the environment throughout its construction.
Why is it that so many coalition members seem to go back to the past to try to appear they’re thinking into the future. That only seems to work in the fashion industry.
How well I remember Fat Man and Little Boy !
Australia doesn’t need nuclear power. We have enough potential wind and water power to generate all the electricity we need for the far foreseeable future.
One thing Dutton carefully doesn’t talk about is the disposal of nuclear waste.
AUKUS will take care of nuclear waste. Part of our “commitment”. Australia is mostly empty, and already has ruined country around Maralinga. So who cares?
Dutton’s policy is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. As long as we are talking about it, we are not talking about climate action that can be taken right here and now. Hence, we’ve given the fossil fuel industries a few more weeks’ reprieve. They should be able to spread the story out over at least the next couple of weeks’ news cycles, by which time it will be necessary to go quiet for a month or so, then either (a) launch an anti-wind farm distraction or (b) drag out carbon capture and storage again. Repeat the cycle indefinitely, or until the planet burns – whichever comes first.
A fossil-fuel-sponsored Coalition’s engineered nuclear-powered life-support system for the fossil fuel industry.