Australia Is More Ready for the Nuclear Transition Than We Think: Liberal MP

Aerial view of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant which sits on the edge of the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California on March 17, 2011. (Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images)

Despite claims that Australia is ill-equipped to embrace the nuclear transition, one Liberal MP is confident that the country will be able to navigate through uncharted waters.

South Australian MP Rowan Ramsey has voiced his support for the Coalition’s plan to build seven nuclear reactors across five states should it win the next election.

Port Augusta, which belongs to Mr. Ramsey’s electorate of Grey, was listed as one of seven locations for a reactor to be built.

Speaking to The Epoch Times, Mr. Ramsey argued Australia has a “world-leading ability” to manage the medical isotope nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.

ARPANSA, the Australian government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, is recognised as “one of the world’s best regulators,” he said.

Further, as Australia heads down the pathway to nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS pact, the country is also rapidly engaging in this area.

“We have already sent people to the U.S. to embed themselves in the operations of the U.S. nuclear fleet. And so our skill base will expand quickly,” he said.

Mr. Ramsey highlighted the capability of the Australian workforce to adapt to the changes.

“Certainly we can import skills from overseas where we need it. But our scientists will be up to the job,” he said.

“I don’t have any doubt that Australians will be able to manage this technology and get along with it quickly because we don’t start from scratch.

“We’re not planning to buy a first-of-kind design. We will be buying proven designs and only two of them so we can concentrate on what we do and do it well.”

How Long Will It Take?

The Albanese government has turned down the nuclear proposal as a viable economic option.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said states have already rejected such proposals before.

“This is economic catastrophe. When we look at the costs of nuclear, what we know is that it’s the most expensive form of new energy,” he said in June.

The Climate Council said Australia is “not at the starting line for a nuclear energy industry” because it does not have a single nuclear power station.

“In fact, before we get there, laws and regulations would need to be set at state and federal levels, billions in funding would need to be secured, and a large and highly skilled workforce would need to be trained,” the Climate Council said.

“The nuclear industry’s own analysis shows power stations take an average of 9.4 years to build—and, with no domestic nuclear industry experience, Australia’s first nuclear power station will almost certainly take much longer.”

“In contrast, major wind and solar projects take between one to three years to build.”

In response, Mr. Ramsey said the construction time will fall with each consecutive power plant built.

He estimated that the first nuclear power stations would take about up to nine years, while the second would take five to seven years.

“And if we keep building the same design we'll get very proficient at it,” he said.

Environmental Impact

The South Australian MP added that building nuclear plants would be a more environmentally friendly option compared to wind and solar energy, which would require the construction of tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines.

According to Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner Andrew Dyer, it is estimated that Australia would need to build between 5,000 kilometres and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines by 2050 to support Labor’s 82 percent renewable energy target.

“There is an enormous amount of concrete in each and every wind tower,” Mr. Ramsey noted.

“There’s a lot of concrete in a nuclear power plant, too. but there’s only one of them where there are hundreds of wind towers to actually compete or produce the same energy as one nuclear plant.”

He urged the Australian government to look at regulatory regimes in comparable democracies, noting his state, which has the highest level of renewable energy in the country, has retail prices that are 50 percent higher than the next state.

“I think on every level, if nuclear doesn’t stack up, why is virtually every other nation in the top 20 economies of the world either operating nuclear reactors or planning to build nuclear reactors and the ones that do almost all have lower power prices than us,” he said.

Mr. Albanese previously argued that while nuclear was successful in other countries, Australia was best positioned to utilise renewables.

“The International Energy Agency, that is very much pro-nuclear energy, says that Australia is not an appropriate venue because of the comparative advantages that we have,” he said.

“If you go outside in Australia, you can fry an egg on a footpath during the summer. We have the best solar resources in the world. We have such a comparative advantage if we seize the opportunities which are there.”

What About The Waste?

Australia has banned nuclear power since 1998. While the technology doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, it has been criticised for producing radioactive waste.

Exposure to high-level radiation includes birth defects and increased risk of cancer.

Environment activist Zion Lights, however, argued that countries like France and Russia have been recycling nuclear waste using fast or breeder reactors for decades.

“Reprocessing nuclear waste reduces the amount of time that it needs to be stored for. It reduces. The waste radioactivity,” she said in a TikTok video.

“People have been so afraid of the idea of this radioactivity, when ironically, if we were to reuse this spent fuel, the radioactivity will naturally come down to such small, manageable levels, you would not have to worry about 10s of 1000s of years having to restore this waste.

“It’s only waste. If you waste it.”

Nuclear reactors produce energy through the use of fission, also known as the splitting of uranium atoms. The uranium that was used is then considered as “spent” fuel, which can be either disposed of or reprocessed.