Nuclear is back on Australia’s election agenda. Will it reignite toxic ‘climate wars’?

Much, colored trains, which are the lifeblood of the Hunter Valley, travel through beautiful pastures to transport stacks of dark rock, which are rarely seen for a while.

This has long been Australia’s fuel state. However, the city, which is a three-hour push from Sydney, is now reluctantly leading the nation’s transition to clean power.

According to Hugh Collins from Muswellbrook,” This city was built around a fuel mine,” so it will be a significant change. I don’t know what will happen”.

Nothing can explain this conundrum as well as the soon-to-be-demolished smokestacks of Liddell strength train, which castle over the rolling hillside outside. One of Australia’s oldest fuel flowers, Linddell, was shut down two years ago. Across the bridge is sister-power place Bayswater, scheduled for pensions by 2033.

According to the Labor government’s programs for a generator almost entirely powered by solar and wind energy, Liddell’s masters want to convert both stations into a clean energy hub.

However, the Liberal-National alliance, which is in opposition, has suggested turning Liddell into one of the nation’s seven nuclear power plants. Now banned, nuclear is the controversial centrepiece of the Coalition’s clean electricity program.

Nuclear has previously irked Australians because they were afraid to plant nuclear plants in their figurative backyards. But with the Coalition plugging it as a low and reliable alternative to match solar, interest is growing.

Each group has vowed that their fantasies are the best way to accomodate Australia’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and lower rising electricity costs ahead of the vote on May 3.

However, some people fear that the state will go back in time as a result of this renewed discussion about Australia’s power future.

Terrible arguments over culture change had plagued American politics for years– but the approaching Labour government previous election declared that era was around.

Then experts worry that the so-called” climate wars” are back, which could put off the urgent emissions reduction effort that the world has been pleading for years.

No matter what happens with the poll,” I don’t believe peace may be declared,” says Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute think tank.

How significant a contributor fuel has been to the Hunter area is difficult to overstate.

Newcastle, the largest city in the area, bid farewell to Australia’s initial product export in 1799 with a delivery of coal. Today it is home to the world’s largest coal port, with A$ 38.6bn-worth ($ 26.8bn, £18.9bn ) passing through in 2023.

About 52, 000 people in this area rely on coal mines, energy plants, or other supporting companies for their lives.

The area has historically been a Labor redoubt, consisting of only a small number of political seats. But in recent years districts like Hunter and Paterson have been faltering, and the Coalition is banking on its perception of a nuclear-powered potential to get over these essentially blue-collar components.

It claims that nuclear plants may offer a similar amount and range of jobs as the coal-fired strength stations they’re going to replace and that the first atomic plant can be operational by 2037.

On the campaign trail, opposition leader Peter Dutton said,” I think people in the Hunter and elsewhere, to be honest, realize that these jobs go if there isn’t a substitute market for fuel.

While nuclear energy has been part of the energy combination in many countries around the globe for years, this is unknown place for Australia.

The single nuclear facility in the nation, located in Lucas Heights in Sydney, is used for clinical studies.

Nuclear has been prohibited at the national level since the late 1990s. If the Coalition wins the election, it may encourage parliament to reverse that, but persuading says to waste their own prohibitions on nuclear may not be so easy. In four of the five state where nuclear plants are proposed, officials have explicitly rejected doing so.

Critics also contend that the Coalition’s claims about time and money are impossible given the need to educate workers, create regulations, and create the infrastructure. Some have accused it of just trying to improve the use of fossil fuels- the aged coal plants will have to work for long to plug the power space.

That wouldn’t be so terrible from the standpoint of Mr. Collins. He claims that because I work in the fuel business, I want to work for as long as possible.

But he understands the need to “embrace” cleaner sources of energy. Despite the fact that” all have their position,” he is particularly serious in nuclear power.

He says there may have been some frightful theories surrounding nuclear power, but technology has advanced significantly since then, citing fatal tragedies like Fukushima and Chernobyl in 1986.

But people in Muswellbrook are convinced the need for work in the region does not exceed the “risks” of radioactive.

” Liddell’s closing resulted in a few jobs being lost, but I don’t believe that really had an impact on the community.” Nuclear technology is dangerous, says 25-year-old Chloe.

Another shop owner just says “it’s not going to transpire”.

” We don’t have the tech to construct it,” he said. We didn’t manage it, he claims. ” We’re always going to have to burn coal, I believe”.

The subject obviously causes strong emotions. Many of the persons present are reluctant to be identified or photographed, but many are more than happy to share their views with the BBC. ” Our community group is ruthless”, one woman explains.

However, it is Labor’s renewables strategy that is stoking heated discussion elsewhere in the Hunter area.

Australia’s electricity is currently supplied by 46 % of renewable energy, and Labor wants to increase that percentage to 82 % by 2030. As weather is unpredictable, this program may be backed up by batteries and oil, it argues.

Australia must be optimistic. According to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese,” we may be positive that we can become a power for the world,” adding that “every region of the nation” may benefit from this perspective.

Ben Abbott is one of those sceptical by these strategies.

” We are no power experts. But where we will place our hat into the band is when it concerns where we live. We are aware of the issues facing them, according to Mr. Abbott, chairman of No Offshore Turbines Port Stephens.

A 1, 854 m ( 20, 000 ft ) area between Newcastle and Port Stephens, which is known for its whale-watching and game fishing, is considered to be Australia’s second offshore wind zone.

Mr Abbott’s party is concerned that the construction and operation of wind turbines did harm marine life– though scientists say more research is needed – and significantly affect tourism.

He also claimed that Labor was running a “scare campaign” against nuclear power.

Some members of the party have savaged the nuclear pitch of the party by posting memes that feature the beloved cartoon Blinky Bill with three eyes, among others.

” I’d like to learn more about it from an impartial point of view, not as a political issue”, Mr Abbott says.

On the other hand, some have also accused the Coalition of profiting from concerns about wind farms. Billboards along the way to Port Stephens claim that only their neighborhood candidate will” stop Labor’s offshore wind farms” ( Stop ).

There is also concern that local anti-renewables movements are being driven or backed by people who outright reject climate change, as a tactic to delay the country’s turn away from fossil fuels. According to Guardian Australia, that includes the Saltbush Club, a group of the country’s most prominent and powerful climate change deniers.

According to Mr. Abbott, there are other reasons why Port Stephens is a campaign. ” None of us are against renewables”, he says, noting that he agrees with the commitment to net zero.

Conversations taking place in the Hunter region are also having an impact on a national level.

According to polls, the country is still divided on the best course of action, with only 40 % of the population supporting nuclear development and the other half voicing opposition or undecision.

For every argument from each side of the debate, there’s a point to counter it on the other.

Both parties have been using cost-of-living relief to appeal to the nation more broadly, but both have been abusing the jobs created for the communities that host their energy infrastructure.

However, depending on who you ask, the price tag on each of these plans varies.

Labor has for years said a grid dominated by renewables would cost A$ 122bn, and has dangled energy bill rebates and discounts on solar home batteries as part of its pitch.

However, the Coalition claims that their plan is half the price and that it will cost at least five times more. They have also promised lower electricity bills using nuclear.

Australia’s national science agency, though, says they estimate electricity generated from nuclear reactors will cost twice as much as renewable energy, even after accounting for their longer lifespans.

According to professor of environmental economics Frank Jotzo, the Coalition’s promises can only be tested for a very long time in the future. ” Given that Australia runs on three-year terms of government, they will not be under pressure to deliver”, he says.

Mr. Wood, a representative for the Grattan Institute, believes that the Coalition is using nuclear energy as a political weapon, noting that Australia has seen bipartisan support for renewable energy for at least the past ten years.

They required a distinction, they said. And nuclear met the objective”, he says.

Both point out that Labor claims it is on track to meet Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target while the Coalition has already indicated it may abandon it if it wins government.

” The introduction of the nuclear proposal would present a Coalition government, majority or minority, with very significant challenges. I suspect we would see an escalation in the climate war”, Mr Wood said.

However, nuclear advocates are frustrated that this is not even an option.

Although Australia has a lot of solar and wind resources, they are intermittent, according to nuclear engineer Jasmin Diab. Nuclear is more reliable and facilities last twice as long- so she argues an “ideal energy mix” would be heavy on renewables with a “backbone built on nuclear”.

“Labor’s position prevents Australia from making use of what’s going to be an important source of energy in the future,” said nuclear law expert Helen Cook. She points to countries across the world already benefiting from nuclear energy, such as the US and Canada, and several others at least studying it, including Indonesia.

But Justin Page, from the Hunter Jobs Alliance, argues the Hunter doesn’t have time to opt for the Coalition’s “fundamentally flawed” plan.

According to him, the region is on the cusp of transitioning to renewable energy, with wind projects projected to result in about 3, 000 jobs.

He claims that going nuclear will require a” starting off” and cost too much. ” It will be ridiculous to change courses now”.

Many people in the Hunter claim to only want certainty.

Instead of using such a serious issue for electioneering, one Newcastle resident says,” the best plan will be for the two parties to come together and come up with a credible, realistic, and deliverable plan.”