I've been a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) since close to its foundation in 1965. I joined around 1969 or 1970. I'm a member still, here in Hong Kong.
Recently I joined a group of ACF luminaries on a Zoom call for their AGM.
In the Q&As at the end of a rather long session on membership trends, I said I'd like to ask about Nuclear power.
You could almost hear the sucking in of cheeks, both facial and posterior.
I said that I lived in Hong Kong, and that the electricity in our house comes almost entirely from Nuclear power, generated by the DaYa Bay Nuclear station, which was just some 20 kilometres away, over my shoulder. As I pointed in the direction of DaYa, to our North-east, over our backyard, more sucking in of cheeks.
I said I'd visited the DaYa Bay Nuclear Power station, a decade or so ago, and that it had impressed me mightily. Since then, I've done a lot of study of nuclear power and written the "Case for Nuclear".
So... coming to my Q.
I asked, "why is it that the ACF has an ideological bias against nuclear energy?"
I explained that I see it as being an important part of the mix, with renewables, especially as we have large reserves of uranium (which we seem to be quite happy to export), and we also have long-standing expertise in Nuclear via Lucas Heights, with its expertise in reactors and nuclear medicines.
In short, Nuclear is green, clean, baseload. My name for it: NewClear.
So why the ACF ideological bias against nuclear?
There was an avalanche of ACF Zoom-sters waiting to take me on. They assured me that the ACF does not have an ideological bias against nuclear energy. They were adamant that it did not. Oh, no!
Their objections are purely "based on the science" they assured me. And then proceeded to offer up, one after the other, the usual litany of tired, outdated, scaremongering objections to Nuclear power, none of them with any "science", all debunked, or exaggerated, as I've shown here.
This proved, to me at least, that the ACF are indeed captured by ideological objections to this clean, green, safe source of baseload power. Objections going back to the scare campaigns of the likes of Greenpeace in the 1970s and 1980s. These ACF folks have never got over them. Never even examined them; never brought their scythe-like scientific brains to bear on the issue.
The whole issue of Nuclear for Australia (or not) comes to a head at the next federal election, due on 2 May 2025. A week today, IOW.
ACF have sent me an email urging my support for the Greens, for Labor, for anyone other than a party that backs Nuclear, ie, the Liberals. Given that most of the main parties' policies can be swapped out, the only true differential is support (or not) for developing a nuclear industry for Australia. I would vote for the Liberals on that issue alone. Though I fear there may not be enough like me. The Greens, the Labor party, have done a good job of scaring people.
ACF makes the following statement in their promo email:
"At home, leading civil society groups – including ACF – have launched a joint society statement in support of the clean energy transition and opposition to the nuclear industry."
That makes no sense. To demand a "clean energy transition" but to be opposed "to the nuclear industry" is silly.
It's like:
"We’re all about saving the planet, but we’re totally against wind turbines—they ruin the view!"
"I’m committed to getting fit, but I refuse to sweat—it’s just not my vibe."
"Our company prioritizes innovation, but we’ve banned all new ideas to keep things simple.""
"I want to be a world-class chef, but I’m sticking to microwave meals—stoves are too risky."
"We’re passionate about literacy, but books are so heavy, so we’re promoting TikTok instead!"
For something more sane, more logical, better for Australia, better for you, for your kids and grandkids, and their grandkids, Go here to support nuclear for Australia.
=====================
ADDED: We have 20kW of solar panels on our roof, which power we sell back to China Light and Power, our grid provider. The payments we get are way above market price and the only reason we installed the panels. This was all done in order to generate Tradable Renewable Certificates, which by a game of smoke and mirrors, the Hong Kong government is able to trade off against Paris Climate Accord commitments. Solar is not a solution for a vertical city like Hong Kong, but if the government wants to pay us for rooftop solar, we'll gladly oblige.
