Finally, Coalition backs nuclear power

This is a transformative moment for Australian energy security. Nuclear power has been banned in Australia for over 20 years, and yet, despite its benefits, no major party has had the guts to challenge it.

Labor and the Greens are bogged down in climate madness, closing coal fired power stations at a truly alarming pace and leaving Australia dangerously short of baseload power generation. At the same time they’re still stuck in the 1970’s hippy era of anti-nuclear hysteria, leaving no viable alternatives except wind and solar.

However, Peter Dutton has used his budget reply speech to push for nuclear, a clean, safe, climate-friendly means of baseload generation:

Peter Dutton has put nuclear power and gas at the heart of the Coalition’s future energy blueprint, in a direct challenge to Labor’s climate change policy, and will wave through the ­majority of Jim Chalmers’ $14.6bn cost-of-living package.

Following the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power station and rising concerns over blackouts and gas shortages, Mr Dutton declared that in the 21st century “any sensible government must consider small ­modular nuclear as part of the ­energy mix”. The Liberal leader warned that Labor’s climate change plan was putting Australia “on the wrong energy path”, ­driving up electricity and grocery bills for households, and threatening to shut down or force businesses offshore.

“We want to see emissions go down,” Mr Dutton said. “Next-generation, small modular ­nuclear technologies are safe, ­reliable, cost-effective, can be plugged into existing grids where we have turned off coal, and emit zero emissions.”

Mr Dutton rebuked Labor – led by longtime anti-nuclear ­advocate Anthony Albanese – for being “happy” to embrace AUKUS nuclear submarines while refusing to “consider the benefits of onshore small and micro modular reactors”.

This will be a major point of differentiation between Labor and the Coalition going forward, and a clear choice for Australians who do not wish to pay through the nose for electricity from inefficient and unreliable green renewables.

Also, despite the fact that I believe electric cars are a major folly, at least with nuclear we might have enough baseload generation to keep charging the bloody things.



  1. Rod Stuart says:

    Chris Bonehead is certifiably delusional with his obsession with power generation that doesn’t work.

  2. templar1066 says:

    It’s all very well for Peter Dutton to now support the introduction of small modular nuclear reactors, but why didn’t he and Morrison legislate for it when in government? They knew full well that the Liddell coal-fired power station was to be closed. He is now a voice in the wilderness!

    • You don’t appear to realise the existence of the Uniparty. Labor and the Liberals are all birds of a feather. And that feather is crimson. They both embrace the insanity of the immensely destructive “Net zero” and pipe dream of “green hydrogen”. Our only hope is the alternatives i.e. Lib dems, UAP, and PHON.

  3. I understood that small modular reactors were still the stuff of “in development, should be ok in another ten years or so”

    If they work on submarines, why not elsewhere?

  4. John in Oz says:

    “We want to see emissions go down,” Mr Dutton said.

    Still a ‘believer’ though

  5. Reg Court says:

    It is time for the coalition to start questioning the so-called science behind the concept of “anthropogenic ” climate change and thereby seriously differentiate themselves from the Lefties. The case for “anthropogenic” climate change is at best flimsy; based on a narrow range of weather measurements over a relatively short period and promoted by so-called “climate scientists whose only source of income flows from Government money. They have a massive conflict of interest.

    There is no proof that “anthropogenic” climate change is real and that it is causing variation in climate. Climate is, and always has been constantly changing!

    The concept of CO2 causing a green-house effect was postulated in, from memory, 1896 and I am unaware of it ever having been proven.

    • NOTHING in science is “proved”. The process for finding Truth DISPROVES false hypotheses (such as AGW). Research the work of Ned Nikolov and Karl Zellers which successfully refutes the hypothesis. There is no “greenhouse effect”. It is just the result of the adiabatic lapse rate. Also research the recent work of Dr. Will Happer and Van Wijngaarden who call global warming “the greatest scam in history”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: