After a marathon review process, Australia's nuclear ban remains

Last year, RePlanet Australia made one of 153 submissions to a parliamentary inquiry into a bill that would lift the ban on nuclear energy.

Despite a 2019 review recommending that Australia lift its ban on modern nuclear reactors, three years later Australians who care about decarbonisation found themselves back in the position of arguing the merits of atomic energy.

After several time extensions, in August 2023 the committee unfortunately recommended keeping the outdated ban in place.

Download our submission:

Nuclear_Submission.pdf

Download PDF • 7.30MB

On the side of reason and evidence:

RePlanet Australia's submission argued for legalising nuclear energy on the basis of its low emissions, low land use, excellent safety, reliability as an energy source, and high public acceptance according to polls.

Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) and the Australian Academy of Science provided expert evidence via written submissions and in person at a parliamentary hearing. This included information about the improved economic competitiveness, safety, and fuel reprocessing ability of newer reactor types. As an added advantage, these newer reactors can be deployed in the format of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to remote areas or disaster areas.

Australia's radiation safety legislation would need to be updated to accomodate nuclear energy operations; nuclear law expert Helen Cook noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has developed the “IAEA Milestones Approach” as a roadmap for countries in our exact situation, approaching nuclear energy for the first time.

The Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) stated ‘removing the prohibitions is [...] a decision to allow nuclear power to be considered on its merits’. ANA president and RePlanet Australia member, Dr Jo Lackenby, stated at the public hearing, "We can start this process now and do it well, or we can wait and potentially rush it in future when we as a nation come to the realisation that we need nuclear energy technology."

And in the other corner...

A small number of anti-nuclear submissions pointed out the higher up-front cost of nuclear energy infrastructure, relative to solar panels and wind turbines.

These submissions rely on questionable estimates...

...and in any case, expense is irrelevant to a proposal to legalise a technology.

Wind turbines and solar panels were not banned when they were new and expensive.

Other anti-nuclear arguments were the immaturity of next-generation technology, the fact that Australia's nuclear industry is not 100% prepared to operate nuclear power plants, and an expected 10-to-15 year lead time to deployment. It is difficult, however, to see a downside to upskilling our nuclear workforce for a clean energy future that will last much longer than 15 years.

"The technology does not exist" is even less of a reason to ban it than its purported cost.

Perhaps the most absurd objection to lifting the ban was the circular argument that there are state- and territory-based bans that would also need to be overcome before nuclear activities could take place, and nuclear energy does not enjoy bipartisan support—i.e. "keep it banned because it is banned".

Perhaps the most disingenuous claim was a link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons—two distinct political decisions.

The impact of a nuclear industry on communities is a concern to be addressed—nuclear projects should be subject to the same approvals process as any other fossil fuel or renewables project, all of which impact First Nations people, and lands and waters.

Outcome

It is baffling and perverse that the parliamentary committee considered cost, unavailability, lead time, and inflexibility of electricity supply as reasons to recommend keeping the nuclear energy ban in place.

Other, more legitimate concerns could have been answered by experts at public hearings, had the committee not focussed on these spurious complaints.