Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Any time we talk about a Future Made in Australia, we need to talk about energy security. I was on a panel last week with the member for Swan, who moved this motion, and we were talking about the importance of listening to scientists and taking the science. And the member for Spence had a bit of a crack about nuclear, which is, to be honest, quite disappointing. The reality is that, as we transition to net zero and needing cheap, reliable base-load power to make sure we can manufacture in Australia, we need to have a mature debate and conversation about nuclear energy.

So let's put some quotes in from the former Chief Scientist from 2016 to 2020, Alan Finkel. The member for Swan talks about the importance of science and of listening to the scientists. All we get when we have this discussion about energy reliability in our network is cheap insults from the minister and those opposite. Former Chief Scientist Alan Finkel wrote an article and an opinion piece on the weekend. Let's hear some of his words and thoughts on nuclear:

From the engineering point of view, it ticks many boxes. It is unequivocally zero emissions during operation, and the emissions associated with construction are low. It integrates smoothly with our existing electricity grid and contributes to frequency control and system strength. Nuclear power can be dispatched on demand independently of the weather and can, in principle, be located near existing transmission lines.

I'm looking forward to the member for Swan taking the science and advocating in the caucus for nuclear. The former Chief Scientist also said:

The mining resources required for construction are low: no battery materials such as lithium and cobalt, or rare-earth elements such as neodymium and terbium, are needed. The volume of fuel is small, with only one tonne of uranium needed to produce the same amount of electricity as 100,000 tonnes of black coal.

The land footprint is only about three square kilometres for a one-gigawatt nuclear plant versus about 60 square kilometres for a three-gigawatt solar plant that would generate the same annual output.

And nuclear power has an excellent safety record. Since commercial operations began in the late 1950s, the death rate from accidents and air pollution is as low as the death rate from solar and wind power and much lower than the death rate from coal power.

Again, that is the former Chief Scientist of Australia. He finishes his article by saying:

… it is worth considering nuclear power as a long-term option in Australia for two reasons.

The first is to minimise the new land area and additional mining to expand electricity generation as our population continues to grow …

He continues:

The second is to minimise the ongoing mining and landfill from replacing batteries about every 10 years and solar panels and wind turbines every 25 years.

See this speech in context