Antinuclear

Dutton’s nuclear gamble short on detail, but voters don’t seem to care

Dutton is unlikely to be bothered by the pockets of negativity towards nuclear, as they are concentrated among “high-information” voters who pay a lot of attention to politics………. he’s pitching himself to the so-called low information voters.”

the specific unpopularity of nuclear is unlikely to be politically significant in the outer-suburban electorates that Dutton covets.

The Coalition does not really want to talk about the practicalities of establishing nuclear energy in Australia. The question is: does anyone?

AFR, Ryan Cropp, 3 Mar 25

ppearing in front of local media in the north Queensland town of Ingham last month, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton was asked about his nuclear policy.

Did he expect the teals to support the Coalition’s nuclear plan? Dutton said yes, citing the new bipartisan support for nuclear in the UK and US, before unspooling a range of loosely related talking points: power bills, Victorian gas imports, and the floods that were affecting mobile phone and internet coverage.

For those opposed to Dutton’s nuclear policy, the pivot was telling. If elected, the Coalition has promised to build seven nuclear reactors, from scratch. But eight months since announcing the policy, Dutton has so far managed to dodge questions on many of the key details of his nuclear gamble.

Those details include the cost of building them, which Labor puts at $600 billion; the earliest a reactor could be built, arguably a decade later than Dutton’s plan; the extra billion tonnes of emissions caused by running old coal plants for longer, threatening Australia’s international commitments to reduce its carbon pollution; not to mention questions about water use, insurance and safety and health risks.

“It’s not clear exactly how they’re going to introduce nuclear,” says Tony Wood, an energy expert at the Grattan Institute.

“What is the policy plan? [There is a] vague idea that they’re going to have some big nuclear plants in seven places … and they’re also going to have these small ones – but they’re not too sure where and how they would run.

“It’s a high-risk strategy and the opposition is really not very clear on how they’re going to deliver on that.”

Despite the big outstanding questions, Labor has so far struggled to land any significant punches on the subject. The Coalition, it appears, does not really want to talk about the practicalities of establishing nuclear energy in Australia. The question is: does anyone?

Mentions of Dutton alongside nuclear in print and online media have halved since their peak in December 2024, when the Coalition released the policy costings, according to media intelligence provider Streem.

A survey of Dutton’s recent doorstop interviews and radio and television appearances also shows the nuclear issue falling from the top of the agenda, overwhelmed by concerns around antisemitism, Donald Trump and interest rates.

The longer Dutton can keep his big policy a small target, the longer he can keep the focus on his core message: cost-of-living, energy prices, and why Labor’s “renewables only” policies are making it worse.

That high-level, “vibes-based” messaging appears to be part of a broader political strategy.

Dutton wants to use nuclear to replace the country’s ageing coal-fired power generators and shore up the country’s energy security for decades to come. He says the first would be built in 2035 if a small modular reactor, or 2037 if a large power plant.

The policy ostensibly aligns a party with a large contingent of fierce climate sceptics behind Australia’s Paris Agreement commitments to net zero emissions by 2050. It also contrasts with Labor’s plan, which relies for the most part on a massive build-out of large-scale wind and solar, plus 10,000 kilometres of new poles and wires to connect it all to the grid.

According to one former senior Liberal who remains close to the party, Dutton’s nuclear gambit not only puts a Band-Aid over the party’s internal warfare on energy, but also shifts the debate over the green transition back onto Labor.

“He’s been able to change the debate with the government into a question of how you get [to net zero], and in doing so, has backed the government into the position of being seen to be the dogmatists,” said the former Liberal, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely.

For his part, shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien denies the small target strategy. “We’re not taking a small target approach – we’re leading the debate on how to fix Labor’s energy mess. The real question is: why is Labor running scared from serious conversations about nuclear?”

Opponents of Dutton’s nuclear plan take heart from a steady stream of studies that show the technology to be among the least favourable energy sources among voters.

Polling commissioned by the Clean Energy Council found only a third of voters supported nuclear, with half supporting gas and close to 80 per cent favouring rooftop solar.

Similar Australian Financial Review/Freshwater polling over the last two years has consistently shown that nuclear comes in only marginally above coal on a net favorability basis, and is well behind renewable sources of power like solar and wind.

But according to the former Liberal politician, Dutton is unlikely to be bothered by the pockets of negativity towards nuclear, as they are concentrated among “high-information” voters who pay a lot of attention to politics.

“That’s not where Dutton is pitching himself,” the former Liberal says. “In this area – and in a lot of other areas – he’s pitching himself to the so-called low information voters.”

“These are people who are not particularly interested in politics anyway, but they hear through the fog: ‘Oh, Dutton wants nuclear. The government’s against it. That’s interesting.’ That’s all they hear.”

Voters are ‘not resistant’ to nuclear

That’s a view shared by electoral experts, who say that the specific unpopularity of nuclear is unlikely to be politically significant in the outer-suburban electorates that Dutton covets.

To win government, the Coalition is targeting voters aggrieved by the difficult economic circumstances of the post-COVID years – many of whom live in mortgage belt seats held by Labor.

Dutton, pollsters say, will not be overwhelmed with demands for details of his nuclear policy on the streets of western Sydney.

Redbridge analyst Kos Samaras says there is not a huge amount of opposition to the idea of nuclear energy in Australia…………………………………

Rural support is key to the Coalition’s plan. Under Labor’s preferred energy mix, copious new solar and wind facilities need to be built in the regions, then connected to the grid by a vast new network of poles and wires. Many of these projects have been plagued by pockets of intense community pushback, undermining the social licence required for the renewables rollout to proceed…………………………………..

Also significant in the opposition’s calculations is the apparent age differential on support for nuclear, which Samaras says is clearly evident, but not likely to be a huge vote-swinger.

“I don’t believe nuclear is an issue in the marginal seats.”— John Black, demographic analyst

“Younger Australians in particular don’t want to rule out all solutions,” he said. “But it is nuanced. When it comes to nuclear, young people do have some reservations about things like safety.”

This age dynamic is well understood within Coalition ranks, according to two party sources not authorised to speak publicly….. those of a younger vintage are open to persuasion……………………………………

The most recent cost of energy report published by US investment bank Lazard, which looks at global averages, also found large-scale onshore wind and solar to be substantially cheaper than nuclear.

On top of the cost, Labor has zeroed in on the logistical difficulties of actually building the reactors, on time and on budget. Experts appearing at a recent Labor-led inquiry into nuclear energy estimated that in a best-case scenario, the earliest Australia was likely to get a nuclear plant up and running from a standing start was the mid-2040s – well beyond the Coalition’s estimates.

In addition to production and supply chain difficulties, the switch to nuclear would also involve overturning a handful of state and federal laws, as well as navigating even more complex planning and environmental approvals.

And given the cost and timing blowouts of other large infrastructure projects like Snowy Hydro and the National Broadband Network, only the most optimistic of nuclear boosters would be willing to put money on a facility being up and running in just over a decade.

And that delay comes with its own costs. In a dramatic intervention last week, the government’s independent advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, said that even under the optimistic scenario modelled by Frontier Economics, the Coalition’s plan to extend coal and gas generation until nuclear comes online would produce an additional billion tonnes of carbon emissions from the electricity sector alone………………………………………

Dutton should expect the government to keep up the negative messaging. On Friday, the prime minister advised Australians to “buy some popcorn” after Bowen invited O’Brien to debate him on nuclear at the National Press Club.

The opposition leader, for his part, lets it all roll off his back.

With recent polls showing the Coalition edging ahead of the government on a two-party preferred basis, it appears nuclear is not registering as the political liability many on the Labor side of politics think it could be………………..https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/dutton-s-nuclear-gamble-short-on-detail-but-voters-don-t-seem-to-care-20250219-p5ldj0

March 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment