As Australia’s nuclear debate heats up, the stark contrast between our approach and that of nations like Canada grows more pronounced. While Canada advances nuclear energy as a critical part of its decarbonisation toolkit, Australia’s conversation is dominated by misrepresentation, political abuse, and selective narratives.

Take the testimonies in this week’s parliamentary inquiry on nuclear energy. Rather than engage in a substantive discussion grounded in technical and environmental facts, the anti-nuclear arguments presented were little more than thinly veiled political posturing, untroubled by basic facts.

We start with the Smart Energy Council, which told the inquiry that the focus on nuclear power is an attempt to undermine renewables and prolong the use of fossil fuels. In this conspiracy-laden world, there is no need to acknowledge that State Labor governments are the ones resorting to measures that extend the life of coal-fired power plants to address energy shortfalls after it became clear renewables could not be built quickly enough. Whether it’s the New South Wales government underwriting the Eraring plant to ensure it continues generating power beyond its previously scheduled closure date of August 2025, or the Victorian government with its commercial in confidence deals to keep Yallourn and Loy Yang A power stations operating, the Smart Energy Council ignored these examples.

When asked to substantiate its headline-grabbing claims about $600 billion cost for nuclear infrastructure, the Smart Energy Council resorted to prevarication and deflection.

Then there was The Australia Institute’s train-wreck appearance. Dismissing nuclear as ‘not clean’, it placed itself at odds with the IPCC, the International Energy Agency, the OECD, and other expert agencies that recognise nuclear as essential for decarbonisation. It argued nuclear was more expensive than a 100 per cent renewable grid, despite having modelled neither. Worse, even though it made claims about economic modelling expertise, the inability to explain even basic concepts of energy system modelling exposed its evidence as little more than political posturing. Finally, its claim that there is no private capital being directed toward nuclear ignores the significant growth in nuclear investment globally.

But it’s not only evidence-lite appearances before parliamentary inquiries, jaundiced media articles are attempting to create a narrative that downplays the successes and potential of nuclear energy.

A recent Sydney Morning Herald article unfairly attributed Ontario’s $7 billion (CAD) electricity subsidy directly to nuclear energy, framing it as a cautionary tale against adopting nuclear power in Australia. The article failed to explain the subsidy also offset the high costs of long-term renewable contracts established during the province’s Green Energy Act rather than solely benefiting the nuclear sector. For instance, the Feed-in Tariff (FIT) program required an estimated $8 billion investment from 2009-16, supporting over 1,000 MW of solar and wind capacity. This funding encompassed several solar projects, including the Toronto Solar Farm, which cost approximately $40 million for its 10 MW output. Wind projects, like the Giant’s Rib Wind Farm and Summerhaven Wind Farm, also benefited significantly, costing around $200 million and $280 million, respectively.

This selective narrative was based on the work of a long-time opponent of nuclear energy. Relying on exaggerated arguments on cost and delay, these reports ignore that nuclear energy is integral to Ontario’s low-emission and reliable grid, providing about 60 per cent of its power supply, ensuring a stable and low-emission power grid, stabilising electricity prices, creating jobs, enhancing energy independence, and supporting long-term sustainable energy planning.

According to Canadian emergency physician and president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy, Dr Chris Keefer, despite challenges:

In Winfield’s recent colourful but selective account of Ontario’s nuclear history, he carries on that fine tradition.

Yet, despite challenges, Ontario successfully commissioned 20 large CANDU reactors over just 22 years—an achievement that helped phase out coal and resulted in… pic.twitter.com/icMwBxC8Sb— chris keefer (@Dr_Keefer) October 30, 2024

‘Ontario successfully commissioned 20 large CANDU reactors over just 22 years – an achievement that helped phase out coal and resulted in one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world.

‘In so doing, Ontario has achieved retail prices 2/3rd the cost and 1/6th the emissions intensity of Australia. The province’s pace of adding zero-carbon electricity in the decade from 1984 to 1994 ranks among the top efforts globally and dwarfs Australia’s impressive wind and solar additions.’

The reality is that Canada’s experience illustrates what Australia stands to gain by embracing nuclear: a stable, clean energy supply, enhanced energy security, skilled job creation, and consistent electricity rates. Yet, in Australia, selective storytelling hinders this possibility.

The current discourse is hamstrung by subjective ideologies resistant to nuclear, irrespective of science, international best practices and local needs.

Australians deserve a debate informed by practical, technical realities rather than political narratives that dismiss nuclear as a mere ‘distraction’.

We can’t afford to reject proven solutions, especially when the stakes – reliable energy, emissions reductions, and economic sustainability – are so high.

As the nuclear inquiry continues, we must push for voices grounded in facts. The world is moving forward with nuclear as part of a balanced energy mix, and so should we.

Cristina Talacko, Coalition for Conservation