Former Dow CEO Backs Nuclear for Australia

US congresspersons push Australia to adopt nuclear power

Former Chairman and CEO of The Dow Chemical Company and Member of the Concordia Leadership Council Andrew N. Liveris speaks onstage during the 2018 Concordia Annual Summit: Day 1 at Grand Hyatt New York on September 24, 2018 in New York City. (Riccardo Savi/Getty Images)

The former CEO of Dow Chemical has backed Australia’s adoption of nuclear power.

Andrew Liveris, now president of the Organising Committee for the 2032 Games, said the Australian government needed to seriously consider small modular reactors (SMRs).

“I definitely am in the school of thinking that when you think about the technologies to get us to zero emissions, carbon-positive, you cannot take SMRs out of the conversation,” he told the Weekend Australian newspaper.

“I’m a fan of all of the above-green hydrogen, carbon capture, and storage, a price on carbon, and if we can get pumped hydro to be built and economic, for that as well. But I don’t think you can drop SMRs off the menu because of some outdated view of nuclear power. I think you’ve got to be very current on what SMRs are, and what they are not.”

SMRs have long been touted as a feasible alternative to fossil fuels on a small-grid basis. They are modern nuclear reactors with a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, about one-third of the generational capacity of conventional reactors.

Their small size and mobility allow them to be easily manufactured, assembled, and transported to a location to be installed.

Advocates mainly attribute the benefits of SMRs to their smaller footprint, allowing them to be deployed incrementally in remote areas burdened by a lack of transmission facilities and grid capacity.

They will also significantly proliferate the Australian energy grid, ensuring that individual power plants hold less overall weight, thus mitigating potential power outages.

US Congressmen Back Australia’s Adoption of Nuclear Power

Australia’s adoption of nuclear energy has also been recommended by politicians offshore, with a number of U.S. congressmen urging policymakers to abandon their opposition to the power source.

Floridian Congressman Neal Dunn (R-Fla.), who is set to visit Sydney in August, believes Australia must utilise its vast uranium resources to provide affordable, clean, and reliable energy both to households and industry.

“We are going to encourage Australians while we are there. We talk about, ‘Why isn’t Australia with us on this?’ There are a lot of commercial opportunities,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a Congressional hearing on July 19.

“You have got the (uranium) ore, you have got the skills, all you lack is the will. Once you get it up and running, it’s the cheapest, most reliable, cleanest energy. There is nothing greener.”

Congressman Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) backed his fellow Republican, confident that both Australia and the United States are the ideal nations to lead a global nuclear charge towards net zero emissions by 2050.

“I would encourage Australia to look at the United States and invest and partner with the United States to advance their commercial nuclear energy,” he said.

Australian parliamentary support for nuclear energy may indeed be gathering momentum, with Opposition Leader Peter Dutton continuing calls for SMRs at an event held by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) two weeks ago, specifically calling for the development of nuclear power stations on the sites of defunct coal-fired power stations.

“The only feasible and proven technology, which can firm up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean, cost-effective, and consistent power is next-generation nuclear technologies” he argued.

“We can convert or repurpose coal-fired plants to use the transmission connections that already exist on those sites.”

“New nuclear technologies can be plugged into existing grids and work immediately.”

Support for nuclear has been steadily growing within the Liberal-National Coalition, with former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government ordering an inquiry into the issue in August 2019.

Although a ban on the energy source has remained firmly in place since 1998, its upheaval would require a small constitutional amendment involving the removal of four words: “a nuclear power plant,” that exist in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Labor Government Remains Opposed

The debate surrounding the issue is long from over, however, with prominent members of Albanese’s Labor government maintaining a stance against nuclear, citing numerous reports conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) detailing the high costs of such a rollout.

“The government does not support the use of SMRs. This is in line with advice from the CSIRO” a spokesperson for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said.

“Following extensive consultation with the Australian electricity industry, report findings do not see any prospect of domestic projects this decade, given the technology’s commercial immaturity and high cost.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese himself aligns with this sentiment, believing the cost-benefit analyses conducted on nuclear energy speak for themselves.

“Every five years we have this economic analysis of whether nuclear power stacks up, and every time it is rejected,” Mr. Albanese told FIVEaa Radio in late 2022.

Yet public opinion on the subject has drastically changed over the past decade.

A Lowy Institute poll from 2011 uncovered that 46 percent of Australians were strongly against nuclear energy with only 13 percent strongly in favour.

A poll conducted last year by the IPA found that a majority of Australians (53 percent) were in favour of building nuclear power plants as opposed to only 23 percent who disagreed and 24 percent who neither agreed nor disagreed.