When the Coalition launched its nuclear plan last year, Labor was on the nose and early polls showed some support for the policy. But then the wheels fell off.
Nuclear didn’t stack up on cost or timeframe. Early support fell away. By the time of the election, support for maintaining Australia’s ban on nuclear power had increased from 51% to 59%.
When Opposition leader Peter Dutton gave his budget reply speech in late March, he barely mentioned the nuclear policy – instead promoting gas and attacking renewables.
After Saturday’s Coalition rout, the prospect of nuclear power in Australia should be dead and buried. But that’s not guaranteed. The National Party strongly backs nuclear power.
With metropolitan Liberals sceptical of nuclear reduced to a rump, the Nationals and regional Liberals will gain influence within the Coalition. If conservative Nationals prevail, we may well see the nuclear policy survive the election post-mortem and be resurrected for the next election.
Why did the Coalition back nuclear?
In the 1990s, the Coalition introduced laws banning nuclear power in Australia. But interest in the technology has never gone away. Australia has abundant uranium, and nuclear power appeals to some demographics.
Politically, Dutton’s choice to back nuclear power was pragmatic. There were real tensions inside the Coalition on climate action. Nuclear power seemed to offer a way past these tensions, as a zero emissions energy source providing baseload power. It would also have meant slowing the renewable rollout and building more gas power plants to cover the gap left by retiring coal.
It appears the nuclear policy wasn’t a Dutton priority. Nationals leader David Littleproud says he and the Nationals pushed the Coalition to adopt nuclear in exchange for continued support for the 2050 net zero target. After Saturday’s wipeout in Liberal-held metropolitan seats, the Nationals will have a stronger hand.
On Sky News yesterday, Littleproud claimed nuclear was not the reason for the Coalition’s loss. National MPs are still backing nuclear.
If the Nationals stick to their guns, we may see the Coalition bring nuclear to the next election.
Three-year federal terms make it difficult for new governments to embark on long term plans. Nuclear energy would take at least 15 years to come online. The Coalition’s last realistic opportunity to go nuclear would have been back in 2007, when there was renewed interest in the technology.
At that time, renewables were quite expensive. But solar, wind and batteries now cost much less, while nuclear was already expensive and has remained so.
Government tenders for renewable and storage projects tend to be massively oversubscribed, with far more interest than opportunities. By contrast, nuclear doesn’t have business backing. The Australian Industry Group has argued the Coalition’s nuclear policy was 20 years too late. This business reticence explains the Coalition’s proposal to build the nuclear reactors with public money.
This year, clean energy levels in Australia’s main grid will reach 44–46%, according to the Clean Energy Regulator. With a strong pipeline of new projects, that could reach 60% by the next election. It’s hard to see what role nuclear could have in any future grid.
Nuclear isn’t quite dead
In contrast to intermittent renewables, nuclear offers reliable zero emissions baseload power. If you talk to nuclear backers, you’ll likely hear a variant of this sentence.
But there’s “no going back” to the old baseload model where large, inflexible coal plants churned out power, as the head of the Australian Energy Market Operator Daniel Westerman pointed out last week. That’s because renewables are the cheapest energy source. Powering Australia on 100% renewables is possible with enough battery storage or pumped hydro to compensate for the solar duck curve, in which solar power drops off in the evening.
So why does nuclear have a hold on the Coalition’s imagination, even as it faces its largest crisis since Menzies founded the Liberal Party?
One likely reason is cultural opposition to renewables. This is especially evident among prominent Nationals such as Littleproud, Matt Canavan and Barnaby Joyce. As the thinking presumably goes, if “latte-sipping greens” in inner city areas back renewables, genuine country Australians should naturally oppose them.
It is, of course, not that simple. Renewables are often just as popular in the bush as in the cities. A Lowy Institute poll found almost two-thirds of regional respondents supported the government’s 82% renewable target for 2030. Farmers hosting solar panels or wind turbines energy generation on their properties see them as guaranteed income even if livestock or grains are having a bad year.
The problem for the Nationals and for the Coalition more broadly is that nuclear just isn’t that popular. Early support for the policy was soft. It melted away as authoritative sources such as the CSIRO pointed to the exorbitant cost and long timeframe to build reactors from scratch.
Labor, with a resounding majority, is likely to accelerate the shift to clean energy. While the urban-rural political divide will still play out in Coalition opposition to clean energy, Labor’s large electoral mandate and dominance in the populous cities will encourage it to press ahead.
As the surviving members of the Coalition lick their wounds and begin to figure out how they did so badly, we can expect to see nuclear up for discussion. But given the new power of the Nationals and regional Liberals in the party room, we may not have seen the last of nuclear fantasies in Australia.
Adam Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
I often write about how younger Australians are carving out a different political identity from older generations. But the election result has reminded us of what cuts across age and sits in our national core. That deep-seated Aussie reaction: “yeah-nah, that’s a bit much” when things go too far. We’re allergic to imported bravado, anything too loud, too messianic. And, when pushed, we don’t shout – we shrug.
This election was one long shrug. A rejection of chaos and division, not through fury but through an assertive, ballot-powered recoil.
Dr Intifar Chowdhury is a youth researcher and a lecturer in government at Flinders University
A fourth-generation dairy farmer is using a world-first genetic index to breed heat tolerant cattle, with his animals grazing in hot, sticky conditions and producing large quantities of commercial-grade milk.
Oysters are so much more than a seafood delicacy. They’re ecosystem engineers, capable of building remarkably complex reefs. These structures act as the kidneys of the sea, cleaning the water and keeping the coast healthy, while providing homes for millions of other animals.
Oyster reefs were once thought to be restricted to southern, cooler coastal waters where they’re the temperate equivalent of tropical coral reefs. But now, oyster reefs are being found right across Australia’s tropical north as well.
These tropical oyster reefs are bigger and more widespread than anyone expected. In fact, they are some of the largest known intertidal oyster reefs (exposed at low tide) left in Australia. And they’re everywhere – from the southern limit of the Queensland tropics across to the northern coast of Western Australia – yet we know almost nothing about them.
In our recent research, my colleagues and I completed the first detailed study of Australian tropical oyster reefs. These reefs are so new to science that until now, the species responsible for building them remained a mystery.
Using DNA, we identified the main reef-building oyster species in tropical Australia as “Saccostrea Lineage B”, making it a new addition to our national list of known reef-builders.
Lineage B is a close relative of the commercially important Sydney rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata), but so little is known about this tropical reef-building species that it is yet to be assigned a scientific name.
The Saccostrea Lineage B oysters we found in Australia’s tropical north are related to Sydney rock oysters.Marina Richardson
Hiding in plain sight
So why are we only learning about tropical oyster reefs now?
Across the globe, oyster reefs have been decimated by human activity. These reefs declined in most tropical regions long ago, even as far back as 1,000 years ago. Most oyster reefs disappeared without a trace before scientists even knew they were there.
However, Australia’s tropical oyster reefs haven’t just survived, in some cases they have thrived.
Despite being delicious to many, the species we now know as Lineage B was not very attractive to the aquaculture industry, due to its small size. And while oyster reefs near Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne were dredged and burned to produce lime for mortar, used in the early construction of roads and buildings, this practice was not widespread in tropical regions. This lack of commercial interest is probably the reason why tropical oyster reefs have persisted unnoticed for so long in northern Australia.
Here the tropical oyster reefs were found growing on a combination of both rock and muddy sediment.Marina Richardson
What we did and what we found
We assessed three tropical oyster reefs in Queensland, Australia. At Wilson Beach, near Proserpine and Turkey Beach, near Gladstone, reefs were surveyed in late winter 2022. The reef at Mapoon in the Gulf of Carpentaria was surveyed in early spring 2023.
Using drone footage, we measured reef area and structure. We then collected oysters for genetic analysis.
Oysters are notoriously difficult to identify, because their shape, size and colour varies so much. Oysters from the same species can look completely different, while oysters from different species can look identical. That’s why it’s necessary to extract DNA.
We found almost all reef-building oysters across the three locations were Saccostrea Lineage B.
At Gladstone reefs, several other reef-building species were also present, including leaf oysters, pearl oysters and hairy mussels.
In southern Australia, oyster reefs are critically endangered. But we don’t really know how threatened their tropical counterparts are, although there is some evidence of decline. Further research is underway.
A new project has begun to map oyster reefs across tropical Australia. Since the project launched in June 2024, more than 60 new reefs have been found across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia – including some as large as 5 hectares.
These unexpected discoveries provide a beacon of hope in a world currently overwhelmed by habitat decline and ecological collapse. But tropical oyster reefs are not yet protected. It’s crucial we include them in assessments of threatened ecosystems, to understand how much trouble they’re in and what we can do to protect them into the future.
By locating and understanding these overlooked ecosystems, we can ensure they’re not left behind in the global oyster reef restoration movement.
Scientists and others involved in reef restoration are now inviting everyday people across Australia to get involved as citizen scientists in The Great Shellfish Hunt. Anyone can upload tropical oyster reef sightings to this mapping project. It’s more important than ever to work together and ensure tropical oyster reefs receive the protection they deserve, so they continue to thrive for generations to come.
Marina Richardson currently receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) and the Queensland Government Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation.
Five of Australia’s biggest fossil fuel producers could be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages after a US research team developed a method to link individual companies to specific climate harms and put a dollar figure to the impact.
This is the result of a new peer-review study published in the journal Nature that sought to establish a method that would allow courts to quantify the economic loss caused by fossil fuel producers for one kind of climate impact – extreme heat.
