It’s encouraging to see Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, weakened system security and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up variable electricity sources. This privatisation of generating assets and retirement of old infrastructure, coupled with the political gridlock around building new coal has prevented new generating capacity from fully replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing Section 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?

It’s encouraging to see the Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that Renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, reduced reliability and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up intermittent electricity sources. Though lack of government regulation, privatisation of generating assets, retirement of old infrastructure and the political gridlock around building new coal, new reliable, generating capacity is not replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?

It’s encouraging to see the Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that Renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, reduced reliability and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up intermittent electricity sources. Though lack of government regulation, privatisation of generating assets, retirement of old infrastructure and the political gridlock around building new coal, new reliable, generating capacity is not replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?

It’s encouraging to see the Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that Renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, reduced reliability and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up intermittent electricity sources. Though lack of government regulation, privatisation of generating assets, retirement of old infrastructure and the political gridlock around building new coal, new reliable, generating capacity is not replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?

It’s encouraging to see the Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that Renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, reduced reliability and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up intermittent electricity sources. Though lack of government regulation, privatisation of generating assets, retirement of old infrastructure and the political gridlock around building new coal, new reliable, generating capacity is not replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?

It’s encouraging to see the Australia make real political and financial commitments toward transitioning to a decarbonised electricity network. I’m writing to you today because I believe nuclear energy needs to be a central part of that conversation, and any subsequent legislation. Australia once was very interested in generating electricity from nuclear power, and made world-class contributions to the technology in the early days through the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC - Who now as ANSTO, continue to do world class research in Nuclear technology more broadly) In 1998, Australia passed legislation to ban nuclear energy, section 140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act. This law, still in force today, is purely ideological and has no backing in reason. We are constantly led to believe that Renewable energy technologies will replace our aging coal-fired generation and will do it cheaply. What we are experiencing are climbing prices, reduced reliability and entrenchment of gas-fired infrastructure to back-up intermittent electricity sources. Though lack of government regulation, privatisation of generating assets, retirement of old infrastructure and the political gridlock around building new coal, new reliable, generating capacity is not replacing old assets as they retire. Australia’s blanket ban on nuclear power means meaningful conversation with providers, utilities, regulatory bodies simply do not occur. Yet we can see the cleanest electricity grids in developed nations run on nuclear and hydro power. Innovations in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Molten-Salt Technologies (MSRs), and Fast Neutron Reactors, should be in the national discussion along with pumped hydro, battery developments, improvements in efficiency, and synthetic fuels. Observing the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, the Green New Deal seeks to cut emissions dramatically within 12 years. That’s very ambitious, but France, Sweden, and Ontario have provided historical blueprints on how, at least for electricity, it can be done. Their large build-outs of nuclear and hydro in the 70s and 80s cut their electricity emissions to virtually zero over the course of a decade. Meanwhile, Germany has spent $580 billion on their version of the Green New Deal (which actively shutters nuclear plants). The result? Almost no emissions reductions and electricity that’s both ten times dirtier and twice as expensive compared to 72%-nuclear France. Lastly, there are over 70 companies working on the next generation of nuclear reactors. These reactors are designed to be manufactured in factories and run at higher temperatures than today’s, attributes which make them ideal for cutting carbon from the other two-thirds of the emissions pie-- industrial heat and transportation-- all at a cost that is competitive with existing fossil fuel generation. By closing the door to nuclear, Australia closes the door to these innovative technologies being developed worldwide, to many of which Australia has contributed. Climate change is the existential threat to humanity of our generation, we don’t have the luxury of excluding nuclear power from our energy transition. As a voter in your electorate, can I count on you to only support repealing 140A of the EPBC Act and allow nuclear power to be a part of a great Australian clean energy mix?