Posted by Mark Halper

Australia’s energy minister Martin Ferguson says the country might have to consider “all forms of clean energy,” and that could include nuclear.

Australia, long a no-go country for nuclear power, is showing signs of reconsidering its position as it recognises that nuclear could help cut carbon emissions.

“The Australian government’s responsibility is to test all forms of clean energy,” said Energy Minister Martin Ferguson in an article by the Australian Associated Press this week.

He was agreeing with a newly minted report by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, an independent think tank whose CEO Stephen Martin criticized a recent government white paper for omitting nuclear.

“If Australia is serious about mitigating the effects of climate change then nuclear must be on the table,” Martin said in the report. “It has the potential to provide low-cost, clean, base load energy and will be an important back-up if other renewable or clean energy options do not come to fruition.”


Australia currently generates about 78 percent of its electricity from coal, according to a World Nuclear Association overview.  It is trying to switch to cleaner sources, but has made patchy progress with renewables like solar, wind and geothermal.

Just this week, for example, the federal government pulled the plug on what was to have been the country’s largest solar electricity farm – the $1.2 billion (U.S.), 250-megawatt Solar Dawn project in Queensland which was partially backed, ironically, by French nuclear giant Areva.

And an ambitious geothermal project in South Australia’s Cooper Basin region has stalled.

Referring to solar and other renewables as “clean energy,” Energy Minister Ferguson noted, “If at some point in the future we don’t get the breakthrough on baseload clean energy – Australia will need to think seriously about considering nuclear.”

One thing is certain: Australia is intent on reducing its own carbon emissions. In July it introduced its controversial carbon tax, which levies charges of about $24 per ton of greenhouse gas emitted.  It also plans to start a carbon trading scheme in 2015, linked to Europe’s.


Never mind that it is the world’s biggest exporter of coal, much of which it ships to China to feed that country’s armada of CO2-spewing coal-fired power plants. Australia’s energy scene is riddled with paradoxes. It has never operated a commercial nuclear power plant, and several of its states currently outright ban nuclear power, but the country is a major center of uranium mining – albeit a troubled one as we noted recently.

Fast forward to the future. It also has considerable reserves of thorium, the mildly radioactive element that could replace uranium as nuclear fuel and usher in a whole new era of nuclear power that is safer, less weapons prone, more efficient, and produces less waste.


In fact, Australian mining company Lynas is sitting on stockpiles of thorium, a byproduct of its rare mining operations (we’ll have more to say soon about the rare earth business – watch for some cold truths about them here on the Weinberg blog).

And that, potentially, is the opposite of a paradox. It would make complete sense for a country like Australia with no nuclear plant legacy – no entrenched uranium, water cooled reactors – to fast forward to a new generation of reactors running on a safer fuel in altogether different reactor designs, such as molten salt or pebble bed reactors.

If you want to look up to the next generation of nuclear technology, then make sure you keep at least one eye looking down under.

Photo: World Economic Forum via Wikimedia.


  1. Martin Kral says:

    When it comes to energy policies for the next 100 years, governments should be setting the priorities as nuclear, hydrocarbon and renewable. However, most governments have the order in reverse. The most efficient energy is nuclear and it meets all our current standards for clean, safe and plentiful energy for ‘all’ the people of the world, not just the privileged. Wind and solar sprawl is already ruining the horizon, just like the oil wells did in their early days. However, wind and solar can never be downsized, but over the years will be upsized like never before and they have already become a serious eye sore. Have you ever seen a wind turbine tower in any futuristic sci-fi movie? The source of energy is always hidden, just like we can do with TMSRs.

  2. Robert Steinhaus says:

    It is attractive to suggest that Australia might skip a generation of development and jump right to Gen-4 Thorium LFTR reactors. The suggestion has technical and economic merit and it is well to raise it to stimulate thinking.

    Sadly, until commercial versions of this very promising reactor technology are at least prototyped and certified by regulators, it is too early to suggest that Australia consider using it.

  3. Christian says:

    People like Rich Misty of Huffington post are clueless with reargd to LFTR. They want to put the LFTR in the same category as a water cooled, solid fuel element reactor and point to the nuclear genie. Mr Misty is just one of Mr Rubin’s and the anti-nuclear acolytes. These anti-nuclear curmudgeons are the doom and gloom generation. They see Fukushima as a rallying cry to end all nuclear yet make no bones that renewables will take their place. Yet not today. Rubin needs an education and not just a policy perspective. Frankly, I am frustrated that policy wonks are touted as nuclear experts where it is clear they know nothing of the technology they are bashing. The problems with nuclear are not technical, as those are solvable. The problems are political. Thus it is up to those with law degrees, and liberal arts backgrounds that will ultimately decide the fate of a highly technical enterprise.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s work has helped us to understand the potential benefits of thorium and next generation nuclear reactors, such as the Molten Salt Reactor.

— All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy


Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need...
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive


  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation