Australia Rejected Nuclear—Will the U.S. Finally Follow Suit?
In Australia’s recent national election, voters were given a rare and stark choice: double down on fossil fuels and gamble billions on nuclear energy, or commit to a clean, renewable future. The result? Australians overwhelmingly backed a rapid transition to renewables—and firmly rejected the nuclear distraction.
The outcome wasn’t just a political win for renewables—it was a referendum on what kind of energy future people want. Rooftop solar, household batteries, and electric vehicles dominated the conversation, not reactors. In urban centers and suburban neighborhoods alike, Australians said yes to clean energy, no to nuclear.
It’s a lesson the U.S. should take to heart.
The Myth of “Choice” Between Renewables and Nuclear
For decades, the nuclear industry has positioned itself as a necessary “alternative” to fossil fuels—often pitting itself against solar and wind. But the reality, both in Australia and the U.S., is that every dollar spent on nuclear is a dollar not spent on faster, cheaper, cleaner solutions.
Take Texas, for example. Right now, state lawmakers are considering HB 14, a bill that would divert billions in public funds toward small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). These experimental technologies are unproven, expensive, and slow—with even the most optimistic estimates showing they won’t be operational for at least 6–10 years. That’s time we don’t have in the fight against climate change.
What’s worse, these proposed SMRs don’t even have to connect to the grid to qualify for taxpayer funds. They could take hundreds of millions in public money and produce no electricity for Texas families.
Meanwhile, Renewables Are Winning
Australia’s solar success story proves what we already know: renewables work. Nearly 80% of homes in Australia are projected to be powered by rooftop solar by 2050. Entire suburbs—especially working-class ones—are installing solar panels and batteries, saving families thousands annually. Despite misleading claims from nuclear advocates, clean energy isn’t just for the wealthy inner-city elite—it’s thriving in outer suburbs and regional communities.
Similarly, U.S. states like California, Texas, and Iowa are proving that wind, solar, and battery storage can meet growing demand quickly, reliably, and affordably. In fact, solar paired with storage is already cheaper than new gas or nuclear across much of the country.
Nuclear Slows Us Down—and Risks a Backslide
The Australian election showed that voters don’t want to waste time or money. When nuclear is introduced into national energy plans, it slows the buildout of renewables, dampens investor confidence, and delays emissions reductions. That’s exactly what’s happening in the U.S., where federal and state initiatives are increasingly being diverted toward nuclear vanity projects instead of building out a resilient, renewable grid.
But the clock is ticking. Coal plants are closing. Climate impacts are intensifying. What we need is urgent deployment of renewable energy, not a return to 20th-century nuclear fantasies.
A Path Forward for the U.S.
We don’t need to repeat the mistakes of pro-nuclear politicians like Australia’s Peter Dutton. We can follow the voters—who, when given a real choice, have consistently backed renewables over nuclear.
That means:
- Rejecting bills like Texas’s HB 14 that pour taxpayer money into unaccountable nuclear projects.
- Supporting policies that expand rooftop solar, wind, storage, and energy efficiency.
- Prioritizing environmental justice by making sure communities benefit from the clean energy transition.
- Building a modern grid that supports decentralized, renewable-powered systems.
The U.S. has the technology, the workforce, and creativity to make the transition to clean energy. What we need now is the political will to choose a future powered by wind and sun—not radioactive waste and broken promises.
The choice is clear. Australia made it. It’s time we did, too.