My Word | Nuclear: is it a real option?

On the other, it’s been comforting to see the mud-slinging start with juvenile jokes and personal attacks — thank goodness some things never change.

The Liberals’ plan for a nuclear-powered Australia is a bold one and for once, it’s good to see them come up with a policy that does not involve tax cuts or immigration numbers.

Peter Dutton’s plan actually involves spending money. Lots of money.

How much money? Well, we don’t know because the numbers haven’t been revealed. We know the proposed locations of seven nuclear reactors, and we know the types — large-scale or small-modular — but that’s it. We don’t know how long it will take to build seven reactors or how the terrifying waste will be disposed of.

This could all be part of a carefully planned policy drip feed by the Coalition, with the final costs and toxic waste plans revealed the night before election day.

The big non-reveal is also an admission that the costs, both in monetary and in environmental terms, are going to be painful.

Interestingly, this big plan has placed the fear boot firmly on the other foot, with Labor now busy creating alarm and mistrust over money and nuclear pollution.

Such is the way of public debate in an open democracy. In the end, it’s every person for themselves to sort out the smoke from the mirrors and the untruths from the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

In times such as this, the more idealistic among us might hanker for Plato’s Republic, where the Philosopher Kings are in charge, and nobody else gets a say. They get on with their lives.

Anyway, back to reality.

My seaside home town in the UK is a few kilometres from the site of one of the country’s oldest nuclear power stations. The Hinkley Point A reactor opened in 1966, and Hinkley Point C, the third nuclear facility at the site, is now under construction. The new build was announced in 2008 but didn’t actually start until 2017, with a forecast completion date of 2027 at a cost of $36 billion. The latest update? “At present, the plant’s forecast completion date is about 2031 at a cost of $66.5 billion – not including inflation.”

Under Mr Dutton’s plan, this wild scenario would be multiplied seven times in Australia.

If Mr Dutton is elected, the cost and practicality of building seven nuclear power stations are only some of the battles he will face to get his plan in place. Nuclear power in Australia is banned by two acts of parliament, so the Coalition would need to win control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then, Mr Dutton has to convince state governments to lift their bans on nuclear power. That’s a mighty hill to climb.

But the Coalition’s nuclear policy has given them a tangible point of difference from Labor and the Greens, and in the world of populist, unnuanced debate, that’s important. The nuclear option is finally a real bone for the electorate to chew on, and it’s another reason for voters disgruntled at the rising cost of living to spit the current government out, however impractical and costly it may be to implement.

Fighting through the smog, the decision we now face seems to boil down to this: can we afford the time and money to build seven nuclear reactors to act as a stopgap until the renewables sector is completely reliable, or do we pour more government and investor capital into renewables right now to ensure an energy-secure and nuclear-free future?

I know which path I would prefer to walk.

John Lewis is a former journalist at The News.