Nuclear has become a dirty word. It's always been an emotive subject.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
It can evoke the consequences of warfare, industrial accidents, and natural disasters at their worst.
Last week, the Prime Minister tapped into our collective angst with a photo series highlighting our pristine places - almost a tourist campaign for Australia, with a dirty nuclear not-in-my-backyard sentiment.
This week the Coalition announced in whose backyard they'd place their dirty nuclear, or rather their zero-emissions nuclear power plants.
I'm undecided on nuclear power. While I love our planet, I find the data overwhelming and often contradictory.
Like many, I've lost my way in references to the comparative cost modelling: base generation, demand forecasts, infrastructure build costs and their supply chains and life cycles.
But there's a broader debate about nuclear, and this week's backlash will ensure, it too, is getting lost in the party-political blurb.
I've done my time as an adolescent Green. Indeed, I've canvassed for the UK Greens before they professionalised, back in the '80s; "Hello, I'm canvassing for the Greens" ... slam.
So many slammed doors. It might have been my bare dirty feet, or my dirty nuclear stance, who knows?
Back then, I joined heated conversations in angry crowds about nuclear. Despite my protest against anything nuclear, I dodged spending a summer at the Greenham Common Peace Camp.
Protesting nuclear had become a war of excrement by then. Dirty nuclear, dirty protest. I spent my summer tending a colony of monkeys instead, such is the call of Gaia.
I'm all grown up now. Those days are long gone. But the current jostling of party politics has taken me right back to the metaphor of that Greenham turd-slinging strategy. Dirty protest, dirty nuclear.
But here's a thing: the Prime Minister's photo roll missed the Royal National Park coastline, the backyard of Lucas Heights and the Opal Nuclear Reactor. This pristine area is home to crucial, life-saving nuclear science - nothing dirty about that.
We've homogenised the term nuclear to an ambiguous blend of energy, weapons, and submarines, overshadowing the vital role of nuclear science and of Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
Many people may not realise that Lucas Heights is home to a nuclear reactor and is a source of life-saving nuclear medicine, or radiopharmaceuticals, some 10,000 doses shipped out to hospitals and labs every week - used in diagnosing and treating cancers and other diseases. Sterile facilities, clinical nuclear.
It's true that alongside the benefits of Australia producing our own radiopharmaceuticals, there is a waste biproduct. And recent governments have invested both in increasing capacity for radiopharmaceutical production and in enhancing nuclear waste management capability. But even with waste, there is possibility.
Australia produces low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste. We have already accumulated decades of such waste - some treated overseas, some stored at home. Recent innovations have shown that much of this waste can be repurposed into generating more isotopes for use in the production of radiopharmaceuticals.
Indeed, MTPConnect, the Governments Life Sciences Innovation Accelerator, highlighted this potential in its April 2024 discussion paper From Mines to Medicines: Australia's Radiopharmaceutical Future.
This forward-thinking document, supported by the South Australian government, explores how we might convert our mining and nuclear waste into valuable medical isotopes, creating a sustainable circular economy that benefits both the environment and public health.
There's a developing business case based on investing in our existing nuclear science assets, industry, skills and expertise, to grow a capability that can mitigate our "reliance on foreign producers [which] can lead to monopolies, higher prices and unreliable service while dependence on a limited number of suppliers risks eroding sovereign production capabilities." One such reliance is the purchase of the critical isotope ytterbium, often sourced from Russia.
Despite the growth in demand for Australian made radiopharmaceuticals, it's likely an average citizen would be unaware of our existing capability in this regard. They might be unaware of our elite competencies, university facilities, nuclear science assets, and knowledge base. It might even be the case that areas of our own federal government are unaware.
Last month, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) released grant funding for the Australian Nuclear Science Support Program (ANSSP).
The purpose of the funding is to support peaceful nuclear science capacity building with a focus on the Indo-Pacific.
However, despite our proven capabilities and the potential highlighted in the From Mines to Medicines paper, Australian organisations were excluded from eligibility.
The ANSSP grant program was only open to projects run by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was noted as "the only suitable partner to enable the Program's objectives to support the delivery of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in human health, food security, and climate through the peaceful application of nuclear science." I dropped DFAT a note to ask why this was a closed grant process; sadly, no reply.
Clearly not ready to showcase Australian nuclear science capabilities to our Indo-Pacific neighbours, I hope our domestic perceptions are more mature. It's getting quite personal.
Like many Australians, I have a bit of sun damage - from that great nuclear reactor in the sky (Dirty sun? I think not).
The dark mark on my face will reveal itself to be something or nothing. But in the worst case, it's likely I would be turning - admittedly with apprehension - to nuclear science for my solution.
In such an event, any of us would hope there will be a highly skilled and resourced industry providing us with the best that science can bring, in a secure and sustainable way. And this applies to every one of us, directly or indirectly.
In the shadow of the backlash surrounding the Coalition's announcement, I believe it's imperative to rethink how we talk about nuclear in public forum.
Investing in our own capabilities isn't just smart, it makes us resilient. And it allows up to export resilience to our neighbours. It gives us choices for the future - whether that's supporting a broader nuclear strategy including submarines and energy, or not.
I'm sitting in a rustic boho café. Across the communal table, a lady wears a chunky jumper, friendly smile, and a "No to Nuclear" badge. I lean in.
"No to nuclear power?" I ask. She beams back, the smile of the self-assured, "No to nuclear anything!" she confirms.
My hand drifts subconsciously across my face. "Yeah," I reply, for old-time's sake, "Dirty nuclear."
- Alison Howe is the CEO National Institute of Strategic Resilience.
