The Coalition's Ambitious Plan to Die Young: A Critical Look at SMRs and the Nuclear Pathway

In recent weeks, the Australian government has been touting its plan to transition away from coal power by replacing it with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), a type of nuclear energy. However, this ambitious plan is facing significant backlash from within and outside the government. One of the most vocal critics is Nationals MP Darren Chester, who has effectively kyboshed the plan.

The core issue at hand is safety concerns. Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, has expressed reservations about the plan, citing significant safety risks associated with SMRs. While he may be willing to accept power plants in other electorates, it's clear that he's not willing to take on this risk in his own backyard unless he's handed a significant economic package.

But is the risk worth it? The CSIRO/AEMO GenCost report has consistently shown that wind and solar energy are the cheapest form of new energy for Australia, even when considering additional integration costs such as energy storage and transmission. In contrast, SMRs will produce more nuclear waste than conventional nuclear power plants and won't be commercially available until the 2030s at the earliest.

Furthermore, the most advanced project to date, NuScale in the US, has ceased development due to the high cost of production. Even with optimistic figures, the energy produced would be over double the price of utility-scale solar. To replace just 10,000MW of coal power, we would need more than 20 SMRs, which is not only impractical but also economically unsustainable.

The question remains: would you rather die slowly or quickly? In this case, it seems that the Coalition's plan to 'die young' with nuclear energy is a risk not worth taking. With wind and solar energy providing a cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable solution, it's time for the government to rethink its nuclear ambitions and prioritize the future of our planet.

Die young game socialism