Given that the global peak body on the science of climate change has indicated the need for a dramatic increase in nuclear energy production,
and that the potential for this scale of rapid expansion has been historically demonstrated,
as well as recently proven to entirely replace coal – the most concentrated source of greenhouse gas – at a regional scale
all while demonstrating an astounding net benefit to human life and health,
and with the advantage of inherently safe fast reactor designs, not only ready to be demonstrated at full scale, but proposed as part of a federal senator’s unprecedented nation-building plan for the economic revitalisation of South Australia (home to a quarter of the world’s uranium),
it is time for Australia’s incongruous and completely arbitrary prohibition to be lifted. Furthermore, the traditionally vociferous nuclear opposition would be well served by finally acknowledging the quality and volume of science which is stacked against it, rationally reconsidering its position, and ideally re-entering the conversation as an informed, responsible stakeholder.
I think PRISMs must be built where the plutonium is and at this stage that’s not SA. If anything recent WNA news hinted that the UK may prefer CANDUs for plutonium burnup, even if less completely. Perhaps they could work in sequence as proposed for Pickering, Ontario.
I don’t know what it will take for the 100% renewables crowd to get real. Perhaps they see Australia’s 4.3% power emissions increase as just a pothole on the road to nirvana.
Perhaps emissions are more of a side-issue for some of them, John, given how they maintain such high regard for Germany’s efforts.