Nuclear energy remains weapon of choice for climate deniers and coal lobby

The fight over “net zero” at the National Party over the weekend was all a bit of a charade. Yes, it garnered attention from mainstream media, but it was essentially meaningless.

The Nationals, and the Liberal Party coalition partners, are in furious agreement: They are not the slightest bit serious about strong climate action, and the only difference between former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce and current leader David Littleproud is that Joyce wants to stop the pretense.

Littleproud, let’s remember, believes that net zero 2050 means not having to do much any time soon. Like too many corporates, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, it’s an excuse to sit around and do nothing – make some grand promises and wait for some new technology to come along that doesn’t disrupt their business plan.

Nuclear, and small modular reactors, are a perfect tool for this. SMRs don’t exist in any western country, do not have a license to exist, and no-one – even in the nuclear industry – seriously believes they will be in commercial production within a decade, if then.

The Minerals Council of Australia recently shipped over a medical doctor from Ontario to spruik nuclear and SMRs, presumably because they couldn’t find anyone who actually knows anything about electricity grids to do the same.

He seemed a nice fellow, got a huge write up in the AFR and on Sky News, another nuclear supporter. He did not get asked about costs, nor timings, which if anything shows a singular lack of curiosity on the part of the journalists.

Just for the record, the Ontario government – which really likes nuclear – doesn’t go into costs either.

But says while it it is hopeful it can get one SMR built by the end of the decade, if it can get a licence for it, it won’t be able to complete the next three until the middle of the next decade – and this in a country with an established nuclear energy industry and know-how.

In the meantime, it is spending $C12 billion upgrading its existing nuclear fleet, or about $1 billion per gigawatt.

Sweden is much the same. The election of a new governing Coalition, including a far right wing party, had led to the inevitable decision to make a big deal out of nuclear. It promised 10 reactors by the end of the 2030s, before pulling down that announcement from its web-site.

Why? Because it can’t do it. Vattenfall is the country’s state owned energy company that operates Sweden’s six nuclear reactors, which have all been operating since the 1980s.

Vattenfall recently published an interesting analysis on SMRs on its own website, titled Small nuclear reactors, the next big thing.

It makes a couple of interesting observations: One is that SMRs are interesting for countries that don’t have much in the way of renewables, particularly solar. And that they may be used to replace existing ageing nuclear.

Vattenfall has started a study on adding SMRs to its nuclear facility, and notes that the earliest it could be done is the early 2030s or mid 2030s. “SMRs are not just around the corner,” it notes.

Remember, this is a country with a well established nuclear industry. The story is the same in both Sweden and Canada, similar sized middling economies as Australia.

Australia, by the mid 2030s, because it does indeed have magnificent solar and wind resources, should be at net 100 per cent renewables.

The International Energy Agency says that net zero by 2050 means having zero carbon grids by 2040, at the very latest. In Australia, there is even a blueprint of how this can be done, the Integrated System Plan, which is being updated every two years.

Littleproud, however, contends that Labor is accelerating the net zero path “from effectively 2050 to 2030. And that’s putting pressure on your energy building every day of the week.”

Labor is having a go, but its target remains steadfastly modest at a 43 per cent cut in emissions by 2030, which it may struggle to reach in any case. This, amid repeated warnings of heatwaves and natural disasters, as the world continues to go off-track with its Paris climate commitments.

The problem with Joyce, Littleproud and Liberal leader Peter Dutton’s argument is that they don’t care whether nuclear is a viable option or not. Their intent – re-iterated again in the Murdoch media on Monday morning – is to bring new wind and solar to a halt.

The people who are advocating for nuclear – Littleproud, Joyce, Matt Canavan, Ted O’Brien, just to name a few – are the same who are arguing that coal should be kept going, or even that new coal plants should be built. In the self-perpetuating nuclear shill industry, nothing much changes.