Nuclear for Australia founder Will Shackel joined News24's Opinion segment with Jaimee Rogers to discuss new polling showing 63% of Australians support nuclear.
Interview Transcript:
Jaimee Rogers (Host): Well, joining me now is Nuclear for Australia founder Will Shackel. Will, let's start with this polling that showed 63% of Australians support nuclear. Do you think it could be the high energy prices that are starting to drive this change in attitude?
Will Shackel (Founder of Nuclear for Australia): I certainly think it's a combination of factors. In addition to high energy costs, I also think it's the fact that Australians have realised the importance of reliable energy after the Iran war. They've also seen the huge power demands on our grid, whether it's from data centres or electrification. And in addition to that, they're seeing the progress being made around the world, with around 60 countries either adding or considering adding nuclear to their mix, and all of the technological developments, particularly with small and micro reactors. So I think it's a combination of factors, but certainly this polling is really exciting. One figure is that last year, when we did this polling, 47% of Australians believed that we would have nuclear in our future energy mix. That figure this year is now 60%. So we're seeing a massive rise in support for nuclear power in Australia.
Jaimee Rogers (Host): And it's also interesting having a look at the support across Labor and Greens voters. And to your point before, when we're seeing other countries around the world embrace nuclear energy, we are seeing Greens politicians in countries like Finland, and then recently in the UK, starting to embrace nuclear energy. So why is it still so politically divisive here? It's almost like we need to get the politics out of it and have a serious conversation about nuclear as a zero-emission source of reliable, around-the-clock electricity.
Will Shackel (Founder of Nuclear for Australia): Exactly. Well, it's really interesting to look at both the UK and US. Despite their divided politics, nuclear is basically the one issue which unites all sides of politics. And as you said, the English and Welsh Greens recently announced that they were lifting their opposition to nuclear power. The Greens in Finland have historically been pro-nuclear. So it really just takes leadership from the government, who are currently defending their ideological bans on nuclear power. Because nuclear should really be the way to end our climate wars in Australia. It ticks everyone's boxes as a source of energy which is not only affordable and reliable, but also emissions-free. It would be a fantastic way to combat climate change if it was included in Australia's clean energy mix.
Jaimee Rogers (Host): And I think, Will, as well, when we see headlines like we saw this week, where Snowy 2.0 could cost taxpayers around that $25 billion mark, and Chris Bowen was interviewed on News24 on Friday and he still couldn't commit that that was going to be the final number. That's 12 times the original estimate, and it's still years away from completion. For that kind of money, how many nuclear reactors could we have been building instead?
Will Shackel (Founder of Nuclear for Australia): And potentially $50 billion if you include the transmission needed for Snowy Hydro. So if you use the CSIRO costing for nuclear, you would get about five large nuclear reactors for the same cost as Snowy Hydro. And it's not a battery we're talking about. These are large generating units on the grid producing clean, reliable, affordable electricity, which would be producing a lot more jobs and using a lot less land. So there would be huge, huge value if, at the time, Malcolm Turnbull had decided to lift Australia's nuclear power bans and pursue nuclear power as an alternative to Snowy Hydro. But unfortunately, this is where we've ended up here in 2026.
Jaimee Rogers (Host): Ah, Will, hindsight is always such a wonderful thing, isn't it? We'd be in a totally different space if we'd gone in a different direction. But I would love for you to tell us more about the OPAL research reactor that was built in Australia. You know, it took four years to make and remained relatively on budget. Now, I know that this is a research reactor, but just tell us about this and why it's significant when we talk about cost blowouts and how these things can be constructed.
Will Shackel (Founder of Nuclear for Australia): Well, Australia's only nuclear reactor, OPAL, the research reactor around 30 kilometres away from the Sydney CBD, celebrated its 20th anniversary this August. And it is a first-of-a-kind reactor that, as you said, was built in around four years and four months, relatively on time and on budget. So when people say we can't build nuclear in Australia and it would have cost overruns and time overruns, you just have to look at the one nuclear reactor we have built recently, OPAL. Isn't it a fantastic example of a nuclear reactor that was delivered efficiently in Australia, but is also contributing to so many things in Australia, whether it's the research it produces or the medical isotopes that help treat cancer for so many Australians? I think it's an excellent example of nuclear versus other energy solutions. And certainly it shouldn't be the last nuclear reactor in Australia. It should be one of many.
Jaimee Rogers (Host): Now, I've been out to that reactor and it's certainly a very impressive sight. Will, thank you for your time tonight. We'll chat to you again soon.
[End]
This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI and may contain errors.