The choice at Australia's next election, sometime in the next year, is now very clear.
It's all about energy.
Any country, anywhere, needs energy to grow. The cheaper the energy the better. The cleaner the better. The more reliable the better. Energy fuels growth. Growth fuels income per capita.
Here are the choices today, between the governing left-of-centre Labor Party and the opposition centre-right Liberal Party:
- Labor: Renewables only. Cost to 2040: $1,200 Billion
- Liberal: Renewables plus Nuclear. Cost to 2040: $900 Billion
Australia is unique among developed nations: we have a ban on nuclear energy. That's right. A ban. So the first order is to get rid of the ban, then to decide whether the private sector wants to develop it.
Until the current opposition there was no debate at all about nuclear in Australia. It was verboten. For making it an issue of debate, I give props to Peter Dutton and his Liberal party. Well done! to put it on the agenda.
I give the wooden spoon to the current Labor minister of "Climate change and the Environment", the thick-as-a-brick Chris Bowen. His Labor Party has simply refused to discuss Nuclear at an adult level.
The simple argument on the side of the Liberals is that there is no other developed nation that has grown on the back of renewables only. All nations need to have some form of baseload energy. You can't do it renewables only. The baseload energy can be coal, gas or nuclear. We're getting rid of coal and gas in Australia. So nuclear is the obvious other choice. We have plenty of uranium. And even the expertise, as we've had a medical nuclear station at Lucas Heights for decades.
The Dutton opposition has come up with some costings of their nuclear and renewables option with is $300 billion less than the renewables only option of the Labor party.
Worth noting that just last week Australia has had to ration electricity usage. Because of the stress on a renewables based system. That will only get worse. And that in a country with huge energy resources. We export coal, gas and uranium. And yet find ourselves short in our own country. By policy choice. Because we have deluded ourselves that we have to decarbonise by tomorrow.
Here in our house in Hong Kong, we have 2/3 of our electricity generated from nuclear. And we have rooftop solar panels. Net result for Hong Kong is that we have one-third the carbon emissions per capita as Australia does. We are at the level that Australia is struggling to reach. That's because we have been practical in the switch away from fossil fuels. We still have some gas for example. And import nuclear electricity from China. And have Feed-in-tariffs for rooftop solar.
Here's to nuclear! It's a Game Changer.
================================
See my post "The case for nuclear".
