The conflict has already served as a grim warning for powers such as and the of the costs of relying on fossil fuel-producing nations with despotic leaders for energy supply. But Russia’s seizures of Zaporizhzhia and the in the early days of the war – although Chernobyl later returned to Ukrainian control – have highlighted that a decision to increase reliance on nuclear power would carry risks even beyond the familiar ones.
As Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic to this country,Australia has an exemplary record on nuclear safety. But one of the most important reasons for this is that we have a for power generation and have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
In recent times,both these bans have returned to the spotlight as the Coalition,in opposition,has to address our energy needs. This followed the Morrison government’s signing of the AUKUS deal with London and Washington last year. The deal envisions Royal Australian Navy submarines being.
Peter Hartcherthat the first question US President Joe Biden raised when the AUKUS proposal was put to him was whether it breached non-proliferation commitments. The key to addressing this question has been with Australia,which creates a loophole allowing weapons-grade material to be used without the usual safeguards in “non-proscribed military activity”. Concerns were,at the latest meeting to review the treaty,that regardless of Australia’s good intentions,this would set a precedent for further transfers of highly enriched nuclear material to other nations.
Grossi has pointed out that Iran,which first informed the IAEA of its interest in naval nuclear propulsion in 2018,cited the AUKUS deal to argue for its own plans at meetings in 2021. Some argue that this is a form of proliferation,and even our allies and neighbours,from to,have expressed strong reservations about the AUKUS arrangement. Australia has argued that the nuclear material in its submarines will only be handled by existing nuclear states. Nevertheless,the deal could lead to a perception that nuclear “haves” will simply ignore “have-nots”.
The case for nuclear power more broadly – replacing coal and gas with another non-renewable resource in uranium – faces its own hurdles,from the cost,to the emissions involved in mining and waste management,to the question of where highly radioactive waste might be stored.
As theHerald has pointed out,nuclear power generation. One major reason is the expense. A recent CSIRO report underlines that renewables are,even after transmission and storage are taken into account.
All sides of politics agree that Australia faces an increasingly complex and challenging security environment,from talk of Chinese bases in and to cyberattacks by rogue international actors,while major-general turned Coalition senator Jim Molan has outlined an even more apocalyptic scenario,a “” aimed at establishing Chinese supremacy in the western Pacific.
TheHerald that Australia should be prepared to have another look at the arguments for nuclear power. That remains our position. But when weighing up the arguments,we cannot ignore that recent events at Zaporizhzhia help bolster the case against it. We would not want any future nuclear facilities to become hostage to the vagaries of war.
Bevan Shields sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week..