Embracing Nuclear and Hydro - One Nation

One Nation has called for Australia to embrace nuclear power and hydroelectricity alongside renewables. The party's policy position argues for lifting the ban on nuclear generation and expanding hydro capacity as part of the energy transition. No specific costings, timelines or installed-capacity targets are provided in the statement.

Where this fits

This is a rare acknowledgment from an Australian political party that a renewables-only grid may not be the endpoint. The call touches the firm-power case directly: nuclear and hydro are both dispatchable, weather-independent sources that can run at high capacity factor year-round. The policy surfaces the real constraint hiding in the transition narrative. A solar-and-wind grid needs either massive battery storage (a China-supply-chain bet), or gas firming (which burns fuel and delays emissions cuts), or both at ruinous cost. Nuclear removes that bind. The statement does not grapple with Australia's 1998 ban on nuclear generation, the capital cost and build timeline of new reactors, or the political ceiling around the issue, but it names the option the grid is currently forbidden to use.

What it means

If Australia is serious about firm, low-emission power without Chinese supply-chain dependence, the ban becomes untenable. Hydro is geographically limited and mostly built out. Nuclear is the only firm, energy-dense alternative that closes the gap between renewable capacity and reliable dispatch. One Nation's position is a pressure point, but pressure alone does not change law. Until the ban lifts, Australia will continue building an expensive, weather-dependent grid backed by gas and Chinese batteries, paying more per megawatt-hour of firm power than a nuclear alternative would cost.