If we're serious about net zero, we need to lift nuclear prohibition

The federal government must remove the prohibition on nuclear if we are to achieve net zero. Nuclear must be part of the mix.

If wind, solar, and batteries are cheaper than nuclear, then why are subsidies necessary?

Given we also need to overbuild some 100,000 kilometres of transmission lines to bring energy to the grid while addressing the capacity factors of wind and solar, we can't possibly know how much the current approach will cost.

Further, in a major miscalculation by Energy Minster Chris Bowen, landowners not willing to give up their land are digging in, adding to costs and delays of renewables projects.

Under the capacity investment scheme, the government provides a guaranteed level of return on investment for renewables projects, but it is far from achieving practical outcomes that will replace coal. Developers also pay the government when return is high, so there is no long-term incentive to reduce prices.

Can Australia go it alone when the rest of the world is turning to nuclear?

A major problem with Australia's energy policy is the absence of open policy debate. The recent Reckless Renewables Rally that descended on Canberra, for example, was barely covered by ABC news.

People ranging from farmers to surfers protested against plans for wind and solar that impact prime agricultural land and our pristine coastline.

Dissenting voices are growing and are challenging the Albanese government's belief it has a social licence to deploy renewables at any cost.

Nuclear reduces the problems with property rights by utilising the existing generator sites and transmission infrastructure. But it was legislatively sidelined in a political deal from another era.

Many Canberrans point to the ACT government's claims that the territory is powered by 100 per cent renewables.

But this claim is in net terms - the ACT is connected to the national grid and some 70 per cent of its energy is provided via coal and gas. The government purchases the equivalent of its energy use from wind and solar providers outside the territory.

However, the cost to the regions where the ACT government purchases its energy is conveniently ignored.

Farmers and residents in nearby regions have wind farms and solar factories impacting their daily lives in myriad ways. Many Canberrans would be unaware that regional villages routinely lose power for a day to maintain renewable energy supplies.

When this happens, local businesses are forced to close without compensation.

The ACT has effectively purchased its green credentials without doing any of the heavy lifting.

Further, the Rewiring the Nation project, designed to bring far-off wind and solar energy to the big city centres, has impacted farmers' and graziers' livelihoods and retirement prospects. These people are merely collateral damage in a policy designed to help green-inclined city folk sleep better at night.

Meanwhile, from Yass to Moree, the extent of prime agricultural land surrendered to solar factories in the middle of Australia's food basket poses a threat to food security. In the current geopolitical environment, this is a major concern.

Australia's energy policy is imitating Slovakia's. From Bratislava Castle, wind farms dominate the view to the horizon in almost every direction. But Slovakia decommissioned some of its nuclear energy fleet to meet the EU's requirements. The nation went from a net energy exporter to a net energy importer overnight.

Further, the resilience of a renewables-based network to provide a reliable source of energy is routinely called into question.

It is also unclear how much the renewables sector is being subsidised. Many experts, including Dr Adi Paterson, former head of ANSTO, have called into question the method for calculating cost comparisons with nuclear that do not include future "sunk costs" in building wind and solar infrastructure.

READ MORE:

One might also argue that political resistance to energy transmission wires and the inability of the federal government to attract the necessary skills have not been factored into the cost of wind and solar.

The simple truth is that nobody knows how much it will cost or how long it will take.

What we need to be asking is whether the current policy debate is about achieving net zero or subsidising offshore manufacturers of wind and solar components.

Nuclear dovetails in with our most important allies and it takes advantage of our enormous reserves of uranium. With the failed orderly exit management framework being undone to prolong the use of coal, the nuclear prohibition must be removed.

Until the prohibition on nuclear is lifted, we are putting all our eggs in one basket. But the rooster has crowed thrice, and the time for denial is over.