Say 'no' to nuclear - but not for the usual reasons

This is not to point fingers or belittle Australian skills. The competencies of Australian workers, managers and boards have built enviable reputations in many modern industries from agribusiness and commercial aviation to software design and tourism. But a country of 20 million people simply cannot develop skills in every activity. For many reasons Australia has avoided nuclear power and most high risk modern technologies while other nations have decades of experience. We have no expertise in these fields.

To say that Australians have a skill disadvantage in risky technologies such as nuclear power generation is a fact, not a criticism. To say that redressing this gap is impractical should be obvious, not an expression of national inferiority.

Australia has demonstrated an inability to safely operate even simple parts of the nuclear supply chain such as uranium mines and an experimental nuclear rector. When this experience is combined with other evidence, the strongest argument against building a nuclear power plant in Australia is that safe operation is unlikely without a huge effort which probably cannot be justified. Where does this leave Australia’s energy supply industry?

Obviously coal and gas fired plants are operational and running reliably, so new electricity generating capacity can employ these proven technologies. If greenhouse gas reduction is required, natural gas should be preferred as a fuel over coal (particularly brown coal) because it produces electricity at similar cost but with less carbon dioxide emissions. In the absence of a compelling case, nuclear power remains a poor choice for Australia.