Australia Peace and Neutrality: A Path to Regional Stability
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
13 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
Australia peace and neutrality can strengthen diplomacy, use dollar sovereignty wisely, and build stability across the Indo-Pacific region.
Introduction
For decades, Australia has followed the United States into every major military venture, from Vietnam and Iraq to AUKUS. Yet as the Indo-Pacific becomes the world’s new power centre, a quiet question is growing louder: what if Australia charted its own path to peace and neutrality?
A truly independent Australia could use its dollar sovereignty, the power of its currency-issuing government, to build peace and prosperity across the region instead of fuelling an arms race. Australia’s peace and neutrality offer a strategy for stability, regional leadership, and national integrity.
This vision of Australia peace and neutrality challenges the assumption that our security must depend on foreign powers. Australia peace and neutrality could reshape our future security choices.
From Ally to Independent Actor
The Albanese government has signed a string of defence agreements across Asia and the Pacific – with Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Indonesia, and others. Publicly, these are framed as strengthening regional security. Privately, they reflect deep anxiety about China’s rise and U.S. expectations under the AUKUS pact.
But what if Australia could keep strong regional relationships without taking sides?
Neutrality would allow Canberra to cooperate economically with China, coordinate diplomatically with ASEAN, and collaborate militarily only for defence.
Neutrality does not mean isolation; it means freedom to choose peace. Embracing Australia peace and neutrality would allow our nation to build genuine independence through cooperation, not coercion.
Endless Alliances, Endless Dependence
Australia spends more than $50 billion annually on defence, with projections showing a surge to over $100 billion by 2034, much of it tied to AUKUS and U.S. systems.
According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, global military spending reached a record US$2.44 trillion in 2024, with Australia following this trend.
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
By investing in Australia peace and neutrality, defence spending could serve constructive goals that strengthen stability and mutual respect across the region. This imbalance weakens our sovereignty.
When defence procurement is outsourced and strategic thinking is imported, national independence becomes a slogan rather than a policy.
Redirecting spending toward Australia peace and neutrality would reflect our true interests.
Risking War by Proxy
By aligning too closely with Washington’s containment strategy, Australia risks becoming a proxy in a potential U.S.–China confrontation.
The Taiwan Strait and South China Sea remain volatile, and one miscalculation could drag us into a conflict far from our shores but devastating to our trade and security.
Meanwhile, China’s influence strategy, while assertive, relies more on infrastructure investment and trade than on military projection.
Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t keep hundreds of foreign bases or seek regime change. Its primary interest is economic stability, which is essential for its own growth. Through Australia peace and neutrality, we can maintain productive trade ties with both China and the U.S. without being drawn into military rivalry.
Australia’s uncritical alignment with the U.S. narrative feeds a false dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. The real contest is between militarism and mutual benefit.
Pursuing Australia peace and neutrality keeps us clear of great-power rivalry.
Adopting a Neutral Foreign Policy
Neutrality is not new, it’s just forgotten…………..
A neutral foreign policy would reorient Australia’s military to genuine defence, protecting borders, sea lanes, and cyber networks, while withdrawing from power blocs that demand loyalty over logic.
Neutrality also aligns with public opinion: the 2025 Lowy Institute Poll shows 72% of Australians fear a major war in Asia, but only 35% believe military alliances make us safer.
Neutrality, therefore, is not weakness, it’s strategic independence. Australia’s peace and neutrality would enhance our reputation as a fair-minded, responsible regional actor. Australia peace and neutrality can become a defining national identity, proof that leadership in the Indo-Pacific can come through diplomacy rather than dominance.
Investing in Peace Through Dollar Sovereignty
Here lies Australia’s hidden strength: monetary sovereignty……………………………………………………………
Regional Partnerships for Stability
The Pacific doesn’t need more weapons; it requires trust and development. The Albanese government’s Pacific Engagement Visa and renewed aid to Fiji and PNG are steps forward. Still, Australia must go further, establishing joint renewable-energy zones, shared fisheries management, and infrastructure councils led by Pacific nations themselves.
Transparency, Public Mandate, and Trust
Defence and foreign policy have long run behind closed doors. Yet democracy demands sunlight.
To ensure neutrality reflects the national will, the government should:
- Hold annual Lowy-style peace polls to gauge public sentiment.
- Publish Defence Opportunity Cost Reports showing what alternative spending could deliver.
- Require parliamentary approval for overseas military commitments.
Transparency builds trust. Australians deserve to know whether each use of public money serves peace or perpetuates conflict.
Yet, transparency must also extend to media accountability. Australia’s mainstream outlets, dominated by right-wing interests, often frame militarism as inevitable and portray dissent as unpatriotic. This narrative undermines informed debate and limits the public’s understanding of real alternatives like neutrality or public-purpose spending.
To counter this, the government could:
- Strengthen media diversity laws and limit concentrated ownership.
- Increase funding for independent and public-interest journalism, including not only the ABC and SBS but also Michael West Media, Independent Australia, Pearls and Irritations, and The Australia Institute.
- Establish a Truth in Media Commission to hold broadcasters accountable for disinformation, particularly around war narratives and economic myths.
A healthy democracy depends on an informed public, not a manipulated one………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/australia-peace-and-neutrality-a-path-to-regional-stability/
Nuclear energy sank the Coalition at the election — can it power their comeback?
2 October 2025, By Catriona Stirrat, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/nuclear-energy-sank-the-coalition-at-the-election-can-it-power-their-comeback/eqd6mzqsd
The coalition are revamping their proposal for nuclear energy, despite suffering an election loss with this policy. The details are yet to be confirmed, but the Opposition Energy Minister says they will adapt their plan to meet developments in the space.
The Coalition’s nuclear policy didn’t secure the party a win in the May federal election.
But that’s not stopping the Opposition Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction:
“I have a very, very strong view that nuclear has to be part of our energy mix here in Australia, if we are going to be serious about reducing emissions.”
That was Dan Tehan speaking on ABC’s 730 program, following a trip to the United States which has inspired this latest revival of a Coalition nuclear energy policy.
Speaking on ABC Radio, Mr Tehan praised US advancements in the space.
“There’s basically a nuclear renaissance taking place in the US. There’s huge investment going into nuclear, there’s huge developments that are taking place. And everyone that I spoke to are incredibly confident given the use of AI, given the use of quantum, that they will continue to make rapid developments with nuclear technology.”
While avoiding detail, he did admit the policy would be adapted from their pre-election pitch to respond to rapid developments in the area.
But Mr Tehan is confident Australia should be influenced by the US model.
“The amount of investment, the amount of technological know-how going into nuclear, and the breakthroughs when it comes to small modular reactors, or micro-reactors, has to be seen to be believed. And the capital which is flowing into these developments, especially by the large tech companies in the US, is leading to developments which are occurring on a daily basis. And I have a very, very strong view that nuclear has to be part of our energy mix in Australia if we are to be serious about reducing emissions.”
While details of the policy remain unclear, the Opposition has already committed to some form of nuclear energy as part of a deal with the Nationals to prevent another coalition splinter.
Coalition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie insists the policy wouldn’t be in the top five reasons the coalition suffered a heavy loss in the May federal election.
She’s told Sky News the nuclear debate has to be viewed in the broader view of climate and energy policy.
She says the government is flagging poor policies to try and get Australia to emissions reduction targets, pointing to their efforts to encourage a switch to electric vehicles within a short time frame.
“Once again, we’re seeing the Labor Party pulling one lever for a policy solution, whilst making opposing decisions that aren’t good for the country. We know they aren’t going to meet their emissions reduction target, so they’ve doubled down on that and produced this transport sector plan for 2035 that’s going to see Australian motorists really do the heavy lifting and pay the costs of emissions reduction.”
Labor has long criticised the coalition’s nuclear energy plan – arguing the nation’s energy needs can be met with a mix of renewables and gas.
Addressing National Press Club following his election win, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the coalition’s nuclear policy a ‘last desperate attempt to delay action on climate change’.
He outlined his reasons for opposing the policy in a social media address in December last year.
“Here’s the lowdown on nuclear power – it will add $1200 to your power bills, it will take decades to build, it will block cheaper renewable energy. Energy experts at the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have made that clear. Still, Peter Dutton is asking Australians to pay the price for his nuclear power scheme. Never before has so much taxpayer money delivered so little to so few Australians.”
The government is yet to respond to the coalition’s latest comments promoting nuclear energy and slamming Labor’s emissions reduction policy.
Coalition in ‘overwhelming agreement’ on nuclear future, energy spokesman says
The Coalition has given its biggest clue yet on what its post-election policy will be.
Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer, 2 Oct 25. news.com.au
Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan has returned from a lengthy fact-finding mission to the US starry-eyed about a “nuclear renaissance taking place”.
Mr Tehan spent much of September touring facilities and meeting with nuclear heavyweights in the US.
His trip overlapped with the release of Australia’s first-ever climate risk assessment and Labor government’s 2035 emissions reduction targets.
His absence drew some criticism but, fronting media for the first time since landing back in the country, Mr Tehan said the knowledge he gained was worth it.
“What I learned was that there is basically a nuclear renaissance taking place in the US,” he told the ABC on Thursday.
There is huge investment going into nuclear.
“There are huge developments that are taking place.
“And everyone that I spoke to was incredibly confident, given the use of AI, given the use of quantum, that they will continue to make rapid developments with nuclear technology which will enable not only the US, but the globe, to provide abundant energy in a form which is emissions neutral.”
He was particularly struck by micro reactors, which are transportable nuclear power sources that typically generate between 1-20MW – or enough energy to power a small community, a military base or an industrial facility………………………………………………………
Mr Tehan’s comments are the strongest indication to date that the opposition may stick to its guns on nuclear despite its heavy defeat at the federal election in May.
The absence of an energy policy has sparked severe tensions within the Coalition and was key to the Nationals’ brief split from the Liberals.
Mr Tehan said he had discussed his findings with his colleagues and that “there is overwhelming agreement on the Coalition side that nuclear needs to be part of our energy mix”. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/coalition-in-overwhelming-agreement-on-nuclear-future-energy-spokesman-says/news-story/00ba65f8cb559f8fcd0e886a783f4703
Nuclear energy to remain a central focus for Coalition
By Kye Halford • 3 October 2025, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/2025/10/03/nuclear-energy-remain-central-focus-coalition
Nuclear technology will be a key aspect of the Coalition’s energy policy heading into the next election, as opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan argues it is essential to modernise the electricity grid.
Tehan told ABC radio on Thursday: “There is overwhelming agreement on the Coalition side that nuclear needs to be part of our energy mix” (SMH).
“I have no doubt that my colleagues, like I do, see very much a future for nuclear as part of our energy mix here in Australia,” he said.
Tehan has recently returned from a study tour in the United States, where he reportedly toured facilities and spoke with nuclear experts about how the energy source could be used in Australia (Yahoo News).
Nuclear energy was a key proposal for former opposition leader Peter Dutton during his lost election campaign earlier this year, despite voter scepticism regarding its viability (The Saturday Paper).
Dan Tehan fails to grasp difference between baseload and firming as he spouts nonsense on nuclear
Giles Parkinson, 2 Oct 25, https://reneweconomy.com.au/dan-tehan-fails-to-grasp-difference-between-baseload-and-firming-as-he-sprouts-nonsense-on-nuclear/
The Australian Energy Market Operator, along with the owners of the country’s biggest fleets of coal generators have painted a pretty clear picture of the energy future: Forget baseload, it’s time has come and is going and almost gone – the future is about renewables and firming power.
It shouldn’t be too hard a concept to grasp. Low cost wind and solar will provide the bulk of the electricity supply, including and particularly from the rooftops of homes and businesses, and excess power will be stored in batteries at home and on the grid, and flexible “firming” assets will fill the gaps.
The focus on flexibility is the key. Firming assets might not be needed often, or even for long, but they will need to be switched on and off relatively quickly. Flexible demand side management will also play a key role, as will a focus on efficiency.
Australia’s operational paradigm is no longer ‘baseload-and-peaking’, but increasingly it’s a paradigm of ‘renewables-and-firming’,” AEMO boss Daniel Westerman said last year.
It’s a crucial point to understand. “Baseload” is not so much a technical virtue as a business model – the people who invest in coal generators, and nuclear in particular, count on those machines operating at or near full capacity most of the time.
Without it, they haven’t a hope of repaying the money that it took to build their facilities. They can flex a little, but the last thing they want or can do is dial down and up again on a daily or even hourly basis. Other machines are better equipped at doing that, and at much lower cost.
As the ANU’s Centre for Energy Systems wrote this year, the energy industry is aware that baseload is not just endangered, it is already functionally extinct. And they explain why in more detail.
Enter the Coalition’s new energy spokesman Dan Tehan, who quite clearly has not got the memo, and clearly hasn’t the foggiest idea what he is talking about.
Tehan has been on a “fact finding” tour of energy facilities in the US, which appears to have included no renewables, but a lot of nuclear, and – having briefed Coalition colleagues early in the week – he was keen to share his new-found knowledge with the ABC.
“Do you accept that expertise of the Australian energy market operator when it comes to base load power and the transition that’s underway?” Tehan was asked on the 7.30 Report.
“Well, your quote said it all there, Sarah,” Tehan replied. “Renewables and firming, and what nuclear can do is provide that firming over time, it can replace gas and coal, which are providing that firming at the moment.”
Clearly, he was already confused by the difference between baseload and firming. And then Tehan said this: “So my argument is as a replacement for diesel. When it comes to mine sites all that firming capacity over time, that’s exactly the role that nuclear can play.”
Mine sites, it should be noted, use little in the way of gas and diesel capacity. Maybe 10, maybe 20 megawatts (MW). And they are now rarely switched on. Most new mine sites are running on an average 80 per cent renewables, even those partly owned by arch-renewables critic Gina Rinehart.
BHP is sourcing the bulk of its electricity needs for it massive Olympic Dam mine and refinery and nearby sites through two “renewable baseload” contracts with Neoen comprised only of wind and battery storage.
But Tehan was back at the ABC on Thursday morning, this time on Radio National, where he was extolling the virtues of “easily transportable” micro-reactors sized he said – and wait for it – between five and 10 gigawatts!
“And the particular thing that was really of note to me was how the research into micro reactors, so small, sort of five gigawatt, 10 gigawatt reactors, which are very transportable,” he said.
We suspect he meant megawatts, not gigawatts. (A gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts). And, we should point out, these micro reactors do not exist in any commercial form, and it’s doubtful too that they would be “very transportable”.
Tehan said he is convinced that in the US there is a “nuclear renaissance”, despite the recent World Nuclear Industry Status report pointing out there is no such thing. “The simple fact is … that there isn’t a single power reactor under construction in the 35 countries on the American continent,” ACF’s Jim Green writes.
Tehan insisted that 30 nations at COP29 had signed up to triple the amount of nuclear capacity. True, but they said they would do that over a 25 year timeframe, by 2050 – with the aim of lifting global capacity from around 350 GW to just over 1,000 GW.
In the meantime, a total of 120 countries have signed up to treble renewables – in just over five years – from 3,500 GW to 11,000 GW. That is 11 times more capacity than nuclear in one fifth of the time. It is pretty clear to everyone – except perhaps for Tehan and his friends – where the money is going.
And as AEMO’s Westerman told an energy summit hosted by The Australian last week, Australia is experiencing a “stunning democratisation” of energy generation, thanks to rooftop solar and consumer batteries.
Which means that they too will need the grid for “firming”, rather than baseload. Such a dramatic reshaping of the grid will leave no room for nuclear, or any other “baseload” power source. But Tehan and his mates seem intent to jam it into Australia’s energy debate, even if they can’t get it into the grid.
Deputy leader Ted O’Brien confident nuclear will be part of Coalition’s energy policy
By Bridget McArthur and Madigan Landry https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-04/deputy-opposition-leader-confident-nuclear-in-energy-policy-mix/105848854
In short:
The federal shadow energy minister and shadow treasurer are adamant nuclear energy will form part of the Coalition’s future energy policy, though their leader has been less bullish.
Energy analyst Tony Wood says nuclear energy could work in Australia but the uncertainty caused by the lack of bipartisanship threatens to drive up power prices.
What’s next?
Deputy Opposition Leader Ted O’Brien says the Coalition’s energy policy is still in the works and more details will be shared once it is cemented.
Deputy Opposition Leader Ted O’Brien says he is “supremely confident” nuclear will be part of the Coalition’s future vision for Australia’s energy mix.
Shadow Energy Minister Dan Tehan made similar comments this week, signposting the resurrection of the Coalition’s nuclear policy after touring US nuclear facilities.
His predecessor, Mr O’Brien, was a key figure in the Coalition’s nuclear pitch at the last federal election — a policy some political pundits said contributed to their resounding loss.
Now Liberal deputy, Mr O’Brien said he was committed to giving it another go.
Mr O’Brien said the Coalition was yet to settle on the details of its new nuclear policy, including whether it would be government-funded or private sector-led.
Some commentators have speculated that the Coalition may look at narrowing its aspirations to focus on lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy, which has been in place since the late 1990s.
Mr O’Brien would not confirm whether the seven locations proposed to host nuclear reactors would still play a role.
But he maintains people in those regions, including Collie, 190 kilometres south of Perth, were “very open” to the idea.
On a two-party preferred basis, all four of Collie’s polling booths recorded a swing towards the Liberals, which Mr O’Brien said indicated local support for the Coalition’s energy policy.
However, he conceded that on a multi-party basis, there was a swing away from both major parties towards minor parties, such as One Nation and Legalise Cannabis.
Party leader less bullish
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, also in WA at the moment, was less clear-cut on whether nuclear would play a role in the Coalition’s energy policy.
Asked about her colleagues’ comments at a press conference today, she said Mr Tehan would brief the party and policy teams next week on his US tour, where he had been specifically looking at developments in small modular reactors.
“We know that 19 out of 20 OECD countries … have either adopted or are in the process of adopting nuclear,” she said.
“It’s very important for the future, and we’ll continue to examine it closely.”
Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the Opposition’s pro-nuclear stance was out of touch.
“Ted O’Brien masterminded the nuclear policy that was so comprehensively rejected by the Australian people just a few months ago,” he said.
“Now he says he is ‘supremely confident’ that his nuclear policy is right.
“It shows just how arrogant this LNP is — they just don’t get it.”
Analyst says energy indecision costs
Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said nuclear energy warranted serious consideration.
However, he said a lack of bipartisanship around the future of energy could ultimately prove worse for electricity prices.
“When you’ve got different possible futures with different political parties, investors have to build more risk premiums into their decisions,” he said.
“That means the cost of everything goes up.”
Mr Wood said uncertainty could make the nation less attractive to the private energy sector.
“What [investors] want is clear and predictable policy,” he said.
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) national secretary Michael Wright said workers in regional communities, such as the coal mining town of Collie, were also seeking clarity.
“When Peter Dutton was spruiking nuclear, we saw projects put on hold and jobs put on hold while developers waited to see which way the election went,” Mr Wright said.
“Now those jobs, for the most part, are back on. This sort of irresponsible attitude to the core business of powering our country costs jobs and jeopardises our grid. It’s just irresponsible and immature.”
Mr Wright said he was not ideologically opposed to nuclear but believed the infrastructure simply would not be ready in time to meet demand.
He said renewable projects had not been without their own challenges, with planning and regulatory approvals continuing to hold up work.
But he said it was time for Australia to pick an energy policy and stick to it.
Global report confirms and details nuclear power’s stagnation: Someone needs to tell the Coalition.
Small modular reactors
Dan Tehan told Sky News he planned to visit Idaho to investigate developments relating to small modular reactors (SMRs). But the only significant recent SMR ‘development’ in Idaho was the 2023 cancellation of NuScale’s flagship project after cost estimates rose to a prohibitive A$31 billion per GW.
The NuScale fiasco led the Coalition to abandon its SMR-only policy and to fall in love with large, conventional reactors despite previously giving them a “definite no”.
SMR wannabes and startups continue to collapse on a regular basis. WNISR-2025 reports that two of the largest European nuclear startups Newcleo (cash shortage) and Naarea (insolvent) are in serious financial trouble.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in the US last year – just a year after a company representative falsely told an Australian Senate inquiry that it was constructing reactors in North America. The Nuward project was suspended in France last year following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects in France.
Jim Green, Sep 23, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-report-confirms-and-details-nuclear-powers-stagnation-someone-needs-to-tell-the-coalition/
The latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report paints a glum picture for the nuclear power industry — the number of countries building reactors has plummeted from 16 to 11 over the past two years — and gives the lie to claims by the Coalition that Australia risks being ‘left behind’ and ‘stranded’ if we don’t jump on board.
That appears to be news to new Coalition energy spokesman Dan Tehan, who has taken over the portfolio from Ted O’Brien, the chief architect of the nuclear power policy that cost the Coalition around 11 seats in the May 2025 election.
Speaking to Sky News from the US, where he says he is on a nuclear “fact-finding” mission, Tehan said Sky News that “every major industrialised country, apart from Australia, is either seriously considering nuclear or is adopting nuclear technology at pace”.
Continuing with the theme, Tehan said: “Australia is going to be completely and utterly left behind, because we have a nuclear ban at the moment in place, and if we’re not careful, the rest of the world is going to move and we are going to be left stranded.”
The simple fact is, however, that there isn’t a single power reactor under construction in the 35 countries on the American continent; and the number of countries building reactors has plummeted from 16 to 11 over the past two years.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report
Tehan could — but won’t — read the latest edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR-2025), released on Monday. For three decades, these annual reports have tracked the stagnation and decline of the nuclear industry.
There are two related factoids that nuclear enthusiasts can latch onto among the 589 pages of bad news in WNISR-2025: record global nuclear power generation of 2,677 terawatt-hours in 2024 and record capacity of 369.4 gigawatts (GW) as of December 2024. But they are pyrrhic wins. Both records are less than one percent higher than the previous records and they mask the industry’s underlying malaise.
Nuclear power generation has been stagnant for 20 years. Then, a relatively young reactor fleet was generating a similar amount of electricity. Now, it’s an ageing fleet. WNISR-2025 notes that the average age of the 408 operating power reactors has been increasing since 1984 and stands at 32.4 years as of mid-2025.
For the 28 reactors permanently shut down from 2020-24, the average age at closure was 43.2 years. With the ageing of the global reactor fleet and the closure of more and more ageing reactors, the industry will have to work harder and harder just to maintain the long pattern of stagnation let alone achieve any growth. Incremental growth is within the bounds of possibility; rapid growth is not.
Further, the global figures mask a striking distinction between China and the rest of the word. WNISR-2025 notes that in the 20 years from 2005 to 2024, there were 104 reactor startups and 101 closures worldwide. Of these, there were 51 startups and no closures in China. In the rest of the world, there was a net decline of 48 reactors and a capacity decline of 27 GW. So much for Tehan’s idiotic claim that Australia risks being “left behind” and “stranded”.
Even in China, nuclear power is little more than an afterthought. Nuclear’s share of total electricity generation in China fell for the third year in a row in 2024, to 4.5 percent. Nuclear capacity grew by 3.5 GW, while solar capacity grew by 278 GW. Solar and wind together generated about four times more electricity than nuclear reactors.
Since 2010, the output of solar increased by a factor of over 800, wind by a factor of 20, and nuclear by a factor of six. Renewables, including hydro, increased from 18.7 percent of China’s electricity generation in 2010 to 33.7 percent in 2024 (7.5 times higher than nuclear’s share), while coal peaked in 2007 at 81 percent and declined to 57.8 percent in 2024.
Global data
In 2024, there were seven reactor startups worldwide — three in China and one each in France, India, the UAE and the US. There were four permanent reactor closures in 2024 — two in Canada and one each in Russia and Taiwan. The 2025 figures are even more underwhelming: one reactor startup so far and two permanent closures.
As of mid-2025, 408 reactors were operating worldwide, the same number as a year earlier and 30 below the 2002 peak of 438.
Nuclear’s share of total electricity generation fell marginally in 2024. Its share of 9.0 percent is barely half its historic peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
The number of countries building power reactors has fallen sharply from 16 in mid-2023 to 13 in mid-2024 and just 11 in mid-2025. Only four countries — China, India, Russia, and South Korea — have construction ongoing at more than one site.
As of mid-2025, 63 reactors were under construction, four more than a year earlier but six fewer than in 2013. Of those 63 projects, more than half (32) are in China.
As of mid-2025, 31 countries were operating nuclear power plants worldwide, one fewer than a year earlier as Taiwan closed its last reactor in May 2025. Taiwan is the fifth country to abandon its nuclear power program following Italy (1990), Kazakhstan (1999), Lithuania (2009) and Germany (2023).
Nuclear newcomers
Only three potential newcomer countries are building their first nuclear power plants — Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkiye. All of those projects are being built by Russia’s Rosatom with significant financial assistance from the Russian state.
(According to the World Nuclear Association, only one additional country — Poland — is likely to join the nuclear power club over the next 15 years.)
The number of countries operating power reactors reached 32 in the mid-1990s. Since then it has fallen to 31. That pattern is likely to continue in the coming decades: a trickle of newcomers more-or-less matched by a trickle of exits.
Russia is by far the dominant supplier on the international market, with 20 reactors under construction in seven countries (and another seven under construction in Russia). Apart from Russia, only France’s EDF (two reactors in the UK) and China’s CNNC (one reactor in Pakistan) are building reactors abroad.
WNISR-2025 notes that it remains uncertain to what extent Russia’s projects abroad have been or will be impacted by sanctions imposed on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions — including those on the banking system — have clearly delayed some projects.
Construction of nine reactors began in 2024: six in China, one in Russia, one Chinese-led project in Pakistan, and one Russian-led project in Egypt.
Chinese and Russian government-controlled companies implemented 44 of 45 reactor construction starts globally from January 2020 through mid-2025, either domestically or abroad. The one exception is a domestic construction start in South Korea.
Small modular reactors
Dan Tehan told Sky News he planned to visit Idaho to investigate developments relating to small modular reactors (SMRs). But the only significant recent SMR ‘development’ in Idaho was the 2023 cancellation of NuScale’s flagship project after cost estimates rose to a prohibitive A$31 billion per GW.
The NuScale fiasco led the Coalition to abandon its SMR-only policy and to fall in love with large, conventional reactors despite previously giving them a “definite no”.
Or perhaps Tehan was at Oklo’s SMR ‘groundbreaking ceremony’ in Idaho on Monday. Oklo doesn’t have sufficient funding to build an SMR plant, or the necessary licences, but evidently the company found a shovel for a ‘pre-construction’ ceremony and photo-op.
Worldwide, there are only two operating SMRs plants: one each in Russia and China. Neither of the plants meet a strict definition of SMRs (modular factory construction of reactor components). Both were long delayed and hopelessly over-budget, and both have badly underperformed since they began operating with load factors well under 50 percent.
WNISR-2025 notes that there are no SMRs under construction in the West. Pre-construction activity has begun at Darlington in Canada. But as CSIRO found in its latest GenCost report, even if there are no cost overruns in Canada, the levelised cost of electricity will far exceed the cost of firmed renewables in Australia.
Argentina began planning an SMR in the 1980s and construction began in 2014, but it was never completed and the project was abandoned last year.
SMR wannabes and startups continue to collapse on a regular basis. WNISR-2025 reports that two of the largest European nuclear startups Newcleo (cash shortage) and Naarea (insolvent) are in serious financial trouble.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation filed for bankruptcy protection in the US last year – just a year after a company representative falsely told an Australian Senate inquiry that it was constructing reactors in North America. The Nuward project was suspended in France last year following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects in France.
Nuclear vs. renewables
For two decades, global investments in renewable power generation have exceeded those in nuclear energy and are now 21 times higher.
Total investment in non-hydro renewables in 2024 was estimated at US$728 billion, up eight percent compared to the previous year.
In 2024, solar and wind capacity grew by 452 GW and 113 GW, respectively, with the combined total of 565 GW over 100 times greater than the 5.4 GW of net nuclear capacity additions.
In 2021, the combined output of solar and wind plants surpassed nuclear power generation for the first time. In 2024, wind and solar facilities generated over 70 percent more electricity than nuclear plants.
In April 2025, global solar electricity generation exceeded monthly nuclear power generation for the first time and kept doing so in May and June 2025. In 2024, wind power generation grew by 8 percent, getting close to nuclear generation.
Renewables (including hydro) account for over 30 percent of global electricity generation and the International Energy Agency expects renewables to reach 46 percent in 2030. Nuclear’s share is certain to continue to decline from its current 9 percent.
WNISR-2025 concludes: “2024 has seen an unprecedented boost in solar and battery capacity expansion driven by continuous significant cost decline. As energy markets are rapidly evolving, there are no signs of vigorous nuclear construction and the slow decline of nuclear power’s role in electricity generation continues.”
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
Nuclear subs base. Will it be Newy or The Gong?
“what we will end up getting is zero submarines but a bunch of new US bases.”
“all to keep on the right side of Donald Trump’s America.”
by Rex Patrick | Sep 15, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/nuclear-subs-base-newcastle-or-wollongong/
A business case to establish a nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla or Newcastle is being prepared for the NSW Cabinet, but the public is being kept totally in the dark. Transparency Warrior Rex Patrick reports.
It’s a radioactive issue in more ways than one, with no one in either the Federal or NSW government prepared to talk about it with the people they govern.
Discussions between the two parties are clearly well advanced, with a final NSW Cabinet submission in preparation – a fact that has been kept secret until the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure inadvertently revealed it in NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) proceedings.
When confronted with this revelation, Senator David Shoebridge remarked, “Two levels of Labor government are secretly planning to dump a nuclear submarine base on NSW residents and neither of them has the guts to even discuss it. The Albanese government is shovelling hundreds of billions of public dollars into the AUKUS funnel, and
“what we will end up getting is zero submarines but a bunch of new US bases.”
AUKUS is big business
Announcements over the weekend show that AUKUS is big business, with $12 billion to be spent on shipyard and naval facilities in Western Australia.
It’s clear that the question of basing nuclear submarines in NSW is an important one. There will be opinions for and against, but one thing is for sure: without information, public debate won’t occur, or if it does, it will be ill-informed.
“The two shortlisted sites for wildly unpopular nuclear submarine bases, Port Kembla and Newcastle, are both Labor heartlands,” remarked Shoebridge, a former member of the NSW Legislative Council and now NSW senator.
“Port Kembla and the Illawarra would go into open revolt if the Labor government was honest about their plans, and this explains a lot about the secrecy”.
“This secrecy risks deep generational betrayal of Labor voters in both these regions and
No doubt NSW Premier Chris Minns is salivating.
It’s clear that the question of basing nuclear submarines in NSW is an important one. There will be opinions for and against, but one thing is for sure: without information, public debate won’t occur, or if it does, it will be ill-informed.
“The two shortlisted sites for wildly unpopular nuclear submarine bases, Port Kembla and Newcastle, are both Labor heartlands,” remarked Shoebridge, a former member of the NSW Legislative Council and now NSW senator.
“Port Kembla and the Illawarra would go into open revolt if the Labor government was honest about their plans, and this explains a lot about the secrecy”.
“This secrecy risks deep generational betrayal of Labor voters in both these regions and
“all to keep on the right side of Donald Trump’s America.”
Shoebridge seems rather unimpressed. So too does his counterpart in the NSW Legislative Council, Sue Higginson, who told MWM, “Premier Chris Minns is picking up where Peter Dutton left off with a plan to dump nuclear waste at sites in regional NSW. Minns is going further by hosting nuclear subs; he’s making us and our ports vulnerable military targets, and it’s all happening behind closed doors.”
Transparency flip-flop
In May this year, I used the NSW Government Information Public Access (GIPA) Act to ask the NSW Government for access to correspondence they’d had with the Federal Government that related to the use of Port Kembla or Newcastle as a future submarine base, and any briefs prepared for NSW’s Ministers.
The response, received in June, indicated that there were 24 “internal emails” and an “Advice”, but stated that I couldn’t have them because they were “Cabinet information”.
I appealed the decision to NCAT, arguing, as per the NSW Cabinet Practice Manual, that Cabinet privilege is waived when documents are shared with officials from another polity.
That caused a backflip from the NSW Government, with them writing to the Tribunal asking that the decision be remitted back to them to allow them to reconsider their position.
The Tribunal heard their request and ordered them to reconsider the access refusal, and to do so, pronto.
And so it was on 08 September that they sent me a new decision. They’d reconsidered their position … and … the public are still not allowed to see any of the documents, for new and different reasons.
The matter will now proceed to a contested hearing on 18 December in Sydney.
NSW fait acompli participation
Everything the NSW Government does it does for the people of NSW. Everything the NSW Government does is paid for by the people of NSW. The GIPA Act recognises this and allows NSW citizens to part the curtains on the windows of Government buildings to see the information that belongs to them and affects them.
But the NSW Government is having none of that … their arguments for secrecy amount to a desire not to prejudice their relations with the Federal Government, not to prejudice the way ministers in NSW go about their business, and not to have the internal deliberations of public servants subject to public review.
It’s a case of ‘officials’ interest over public interest’.
Whether you think a nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla or Newcastle is a good or bad idea, the NSW public has a right to participate in such a decision. But the way this is lining up is that the NSW Government will look at the business case , make a decision, and then present the people of NSW with a fait accompli.
Democracy comes from the Greek word ‘demos’, meaning ‘the people’, and ‘kratia’, meaning ‘rule’: that is, ‘government by the people’. Maybe someone should remind Chris Minns of this.
Rex Patrick
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Nuclear likely to remain part of Coalition’s energy policy as Dan Tehan warns Australia risks being left ‘stranded’
Nuclear power looks set to remain part of the Opposition’s energy policy, with the Liberal MP responsible for developing the Coalition’s policy warning Australia risks being “left stranded” as other countries embrace the technology.
Patrick Hannaford, Digital Reporter, Sky News, September 8, 2025
The Coalition’s energy policy has been under review since its record defeat at the May election, with Opposition Leader Sussan Ley having set Victorian MP Dan Tehan the task of leading a comprehensive review with the aim of developing a policy that lowers energy costs and reduces emissions.
Mr Tehan provided a major signal the Coalition remained committed to nuclear on Monday, after he arrived in the United States for a nuclear-focused fact-finding mission…………………………..
“So we have to make sure that we are absolutely on top of everything that’s going on. And it’s not only in nuclear space, when it comes to SMRs and large scale reactors that are being built globally. But also the latest developments which are taking place in fusion, which could be absolutely groundbreaking in five or 10 years’ time.
“If we’re not on top of this, then as a country, and especially as a nation which needs energy abundance to keep up with the rest of the world, we’re just not going to be in the picture, sadly.”
The Victorian MP said he planned to visit Idaho to investigate developments relating to small modular reactors, before going to Oak Ridge, where research is being done on nuclear fusion. “I’ll also be discussing fusion there, because there will be a fusion reactor, which will be up and trialling in 2027 here in the US,” he said………………………………………………………………… https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/nuclear-likely-to-remain-part-of-coalitions-energy-policy-as-dan-tehan-warns-australia-risks-being-left-stranded/news-story/eeabb56aee6aeb681a12da64c2ba72eb
Nationals double down on nuclear power policy.
Energy, 25 Aug 25
The Nationals are doubling down on introducing nuclear power to Australia, with leader David Littleproud vowing to take the policy to the next election.
Littleproud told National party members the nuclear policy was at the centre of the party’s fallout with the Liberals following the May federal election………………………..
“We have to have, as part of our energy mix, nuclear in that mix. It was something that we believe in passionately because we see the consequences,” he said.
“There is a sensible way to fix it and that’s what we’re going to take to the next election.”
This move comes despite The House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy releasing an interim report in which it has found establishing nuclear power generation would be too late and too costly to support the country’s energy targets.
Committee chair Dan Repacholi MP, Federal Member for Hunter, said, “This interim report focuses on two key issues that have dominated the evidence we’ve received to date: whether nuclear power generation could be rolled out in Australia in an acceptable timeframe, and how affordable it would be—particularly compared to alternative power generation technologies currently available in Australia.”
“From the evidence considered by the Committee to date, it is apparent that it could be well into the 2040s before we might see nuclear energy generated in Australia if that form of energy generation were to be pursued. This would be too late to meaningfully support the achievement of Australia’s climate and energy targets or to help our coal power plant workforce and communities as we transition away from coal power.” https://esdnews.com.au/nationals-double-down-on-nuclear-power-policy/
Nationals Leader David Littleproud says nuclear power policy ‘sensible’ next step.
ABC News, Sat 23 Aug, 25
In short:
Nationals Leader David Littleproud told the Liberal National Party annual convention nuclear had to be part of the country’s energy mix.
It would help with food security and the environment, he said.
What’s next?
Nuclear power and energy alternatives dominated discussions at the convention’s opening day on Friday, following the near-unanimous passing of a resolution to abandon net zero by 2050………………………
Coalition practice after an election meant policies taken to the campaign would remain and only be dumped by exception, he told the Liberal National Party annual convention in Brisbane……………………
“We have to have, as part of our energy mix, nuclear in that mix. It was something that we believe in passionately because we see the consequences,” he said……………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-23/nationals-leader-david-littleproud-says-nuclear-power/105689740
Government-funded nuclear is fine for Dan Tehan, but not renewables or climate initiatives
Rachel Williamson, ReNeweconomy, Aug 14, 2025
From the party that promised seven taxpayer funded nuclear reactors, now comes a call to enforce pure free-market economics on all things renewable and climate related, at least according to new shadow energy minister Dan Tehan.
Tehan’s speech to the Carbon Market Institute’s emissions summit in Melbourne on Thursday was a pitch for renewable energy and climate initiatives to be turned over to competitive markets.
But mentions of the Coalition’s former plans for state-funded nuclear power plants, or the removal of the $14.5 billion in annual fossil fuel subsidies were conspicuously absent.
And while Tehan was keen to adopt Ross Garnaut’s contention that Australia will struggle to achieve its 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, he did not also reference in his markets-led speech Garnaut’s contention that oligopolistic gas participants are using their market power to drive up prices.
Playing to his role as a free market champion, Tehan opened his talk with a gentle neg at the audience about why he thinks the entire premise of the conference founder is wrong.
“I called it the so-called carbon market, for a reason,” he told the crowd, saying markets are defined by transparency.
“Australians deserve clarity about costs, trade-offs and pathways in our energy transition. At the moment, this has been hidden, and we need to know why.”
In a speech that repeatedly referenced the cost blowout of the VNI West transmission line, called for CSIRO to “release its code, data and assumptions in full” for the GenCost report, and demanded to know how much the beneficiaries of electric vehicle incentives are earning, Tehan’s pitch was that governments are too involved in the economy-wide changes currently underway to reduce emissions. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Currently, the Coalition still can’t agree on what kind of energy they’d like in Australia.
Two weeks ago, Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan from the Nationals were again calling for more coal fired power stations to be built, and last week Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie came out against a too-quick transition from fossil fuels,
Energy is one of the five issues Liberal leader Sussan Ley has put up for negotiation.
Tehan listed eight different areas where the federal government should bring in more market-based measures rather than an approach marked by “ideology, energy constraint and emissions reduction through a high cost de-industrialisation”……………………………………………https://reneweconomy.com.au/government-funded-nuclear-is-fine-for-dan-tehan-but-not-renewables-or-climate-initiatives/
Senate launches inquiry into who is funding fake astroturf anti-renewables groups.
Rachel Williamson, Jul 31, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/senate-launches-inquiry-into-who-is-funding-fake-astroturf-anti-renewables-groups/?fbclid=IwY2xjawL7lhVleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFYcTREaGZqTGVKTWZZSW15AR5cMmu1PBB20ZAr6159zOAR8q2xQnTPPQwVB8SWse9kOCEuKiGNiOnOwzpF3g_aem_zBcQMv8fwSb8s4qbxBk1uA
Australians have a right to know who is funding anti-climate campaigns and, if a new Senate inquiry can uncover those money trails, the findings could be shocking, says the Smart Energy Council’s Tim Lamacraft.
The new Senate committee was installed last night and tasked with investigating climate and energy mis- and disinformation campaigns and uncovering which foreign and local organisations are funding “astroturfing”, fake grassroots movements that are actually coordinated marketing campaigns.
“Australians have a right to know who’s really behind the clogging up of their social media feeds with anti renewables, anti climate, anti science propaganda. Rest assured, they’ll be shocked when they find out,” Lamacraft told Renew Economy.
“We saw from the last federal election campaign, where [conservative lobby group] Advance Australia had a $15 million warchest, $14 million of that was in dark money where we don’t know where it came from.
“The most important thing to do with shadowy networks like this is to shine a light. It’s extremely damaging to our democracy to allow millions of dollars from shadowy multinationals, and hidden domestic interests, to influence public policy for their personal gain, not the public.”
The inquiry, formally known as the select committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, will also question whether Australia’s laws preventing foreign interference in national politics are strong enough to fight off internationally-funded domestic political campaigns.
That work will encompass the role of social media in building astroturf campaigns through the coordinated use of bots and trolls, messaging apps and AI to spread fake ideas and news.
It will be the first step towards finding out who is financing sophisticated anti-renewable energy campaigns and misinformation, and whose interests they truly serve, says committee chair Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson.
“For decades, vested interests have been waging a global war of disinformation against the clean energy transition, including environmental and climate legislation, and these vested interests have recently achieved significant political success in nations such as the US,” he said in a statement.
“In the last parliament, evidence was provided to the Senate Inquiry into offshore wind industry that strategies such as establishing fake community groups – otherwise known as astroturfing – were being used in Australia to spread lies about renewable energy.
“It’s critical that parliament continues this work and now examines these interests for what they are and who they serve.”
Devastating impact of astroturfing
The inquiry comes on the back of years of sophisticated anti-climate campaigns masquerading as grassroots movements.
These seek to demonise a climate or renewable energy issue and rally support for nuclear power, a position known to be a cover for retaining a fossil fuel status quo.
Campaigns against everything from offshore wind to individual projects have polarised public opinion and are having a tangible impact.
Coordinated anti-offshore wind campaigns in 2023 peddled fears such as that offshore turbines kill whales and any in the waters around Wollongong would block out the sunrise.
As a result, the federal government reduced the Illawarra offshore wind zone by a third and pushed it 10km further offshore, while in Queensland the Stop Chalumbin Wind Farm claimed the scalp of the Wooroora Station proposal by claiming risks to the nearby world heritage rainforests.
Ark Energy, which was behind the Wooroora Station project, also scrapped the Doughboy wind project in NSW after the New England landowners involved in the project changed their minds.
Organised anti-renewables groups are weaponising NSW’s planning process by forcing projects into the Independent Planning Commission, the final arbiter of development applications if more than 50 opposing submissions are lodged during the regular planning process.
David and Goliath battles
For genuine activist groups, going up against well-funded, apparently grassroots campaigns that are peddling half truths and outright lies is “incredibly frustrating”, says Surfers for Climate CEO Joshua Kirkman.
“We simply do not have the financial resources as an advocacy group… against big forces like that which the Senate inquiry will actually find out about,” he told Renew Economy.
“I really hope this inquiry can put the spotlight on the realities of where the support for these voices in Australia comes from. I think the public have a right to know, and I think the public wants to understand how their democracy is being influenced by nefarious parties with ill-intent for the environment.”
Kirkman says climate change is a big enough problem without tactical misdirection and influence undermining the work being done.
Organisations such as Responsible Future (Illawarra Chapter) are what Kirkman is up against.
The anti-wind, pro-nuclear organisation was registered in April 2024 and claims to be funded by donations. Founder Alex O’Brien declined to comment on a series of basic questions about the organisation sent by Renew Economy last year.
Follow the money
The risks of foreign funding influencing Australian climate debates is not a conspiracy theory: the issue was raised in the Senate last year after an inquiry into offshore wind recommended the government act to stop foreign lobby groups from crowding out local community voices in public debates.
Last year, Walker published a submission which highlighted the similarities between US anti-wind campaigns and those targeting offshore wind in Australia.
He found similarities between the claims made by groups like Stop Offshore Wind, such as the same imagery and messaging in social media campaigns saying turbines kill whales, as used in campaigns overseas funded by conservative US lobby the Atlas Network.
But he was only able to guess at actual funding trails into Australia.
It’s known that deep-pocketed conservatives such as mining billionaire Gina Rinehart and the multimillion-dollar Liberal Party investment arm Cormack Foundation have been sponsors of the likes of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), Menzies Research Centre and the ‘campaign group’ Advance Australia, all of which have strongly campaigned against renewable energy.
Walker has linked their campaigns with those of a global network of conservative think tanks.
The Moral Compass is Broken
29 July 2025 Lachlan McKenzie, https://theaimn.net/the-moral-compass-is-broken/
When Opposition Leader Sussan Ley was asked about the deaths of Palestinian children in Gaza, she said Israel bears no responsibility whatsoever – that it’s entirely the fault of Hamas. Then, when a journalist tried to ask a follow-up question, she cut them off and said: “Can I just move on?”
That cold, careless response speaks volumes. It’s not just political indifference – it’s complicity.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about diplomacy. It’s about basic humanity. And right now, too many politicians and media outlets are showing none.
They’re not operating in a vacuum. A small but powerful network of lobbyists, media owners, and foreign policy influencers decide which lives are worthy of outrage – and which ones can be quietly buried. That influence doesn’t reflect the values of most Australians. It reflects power.
If you’re more afraid of upsetting foreign interests than mourning dead children, then your moral compass isn’t broken – it’s been thrown away.
Some of us will not just “move on.”
An Israel voice to Parliament? | Scam of the Week
20 Jul 2025 The West Report playlist
Albo heads to China, gets blasted for no good reason. Angus Taylor wants to pack us off to a US war against China to save Taiwan and The Voice (that one for First Australians) might have failed but somehow Jillian Segal has established a Israel’s Voice to Parliament without a referendum. somehow Voice to Parliament, pushing censorship under the guise of antisemitism. Elsewhere, Nine, CBA’s Mat Comyn and much more.
Welcome to #auspol Scam of the Week.
00:00 — Albo’s China Win
02:45 — Angus Taylor Talks War 04:00 — Sky News & Barnaby Blow-Up
05:15 — Jill Segal’s Antisemitism Push
07:07 — Nine vs Israel Lobby in Court 08:50 — Beer Garden Journalism
09:35 — Bradfield Challenge & Wealth Tax Uproar
10:30 — Fake AS Plots & The Netanyahu Voice
13:10 — Jill Segal’s Report & IHRA Plan
15:00 — Albo’s No-Win Game
17:01 — SOTW Winner
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 