Good points! Christopher Pyne, the former Liberal Federal...

Good points!

Christopher Pyne, the former Liberal Federal Minister has an opinion piece in today's Fairfax press.
He calls Dutton's nuclear stance a bridge between supporting renewables and advocating for coal fired power stations.
Makes some good points and emphasises Labour will gain more traction if they push back about the cost and the length of time between approval of a future nuclear power plant and its delivering of energy.

Importantly, he states: "To bring about nuclear power in Australia, there will need to be new legislation, new regulations and new powers for institutions such as the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. The structure to deliver nuclear power will need to be endorsed by the federal parliament and also by the parliament in whichever state or territory a future nuclear power plant might be situated. So here’s the rub: not one upper house in the federation has a Coalition majority. There are three jurisdictions without an upper house – Queensland, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. But the sites that Dutton has nominated for the first nuclear power stations do not neatly cross over with those jurisdictions. Nor can the Coalition rely on the acquiescence of any of their governments."

There are other heroic assumptions in the plan, not limited to the length of time current coal fired plants would need to be operating, the cost of extending their life, and some already stated positions of said site owners being opposed to nuclear, and instead developing their sites as renewable hubs:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/19/australias-big-electricity-generators-say-nuclear-not-viable-for-at-least-a-decade
The plan would also cause Australia to miss its interim internationally pledged CO2 reductions (and likely miss the 2050 net zero targets due to build overruns).

Long winded story, but this is to say even if it were to eventuate, we're talking 25 years away as a best case scenario.
It could simply be a plan to differentiate them from Labor, to show the electorate they have ideas.

A more relevant near-midterm investor concern would be competing battery chemistries in the anode space.
I'm sure everyone keeps an eye on them, such as solid state, sodium ion, lithium sulphur etc.
However, these are years away from commercial viability.
In the mid-term horizon, LFP will probably become the dominant cell chemistry, as it continues to chew into NMC primarily due to its lower cost.
Of course, both LFP and NMC cells have a graphite anode!

PS. Look deeper into the woe-Tesla headlines and you see their ESS rate is staggering, and this would be nice 2025 sector tailwinds if it plays out:
https://insideevs.com/news/745784/global-ev-sales-30-percent-up-2025/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=BHKz66R50Uyko_EaCN5MC55REgPkQp1CxWgBoOdLdV0.VCGm8F

Some inspiration for DC and his card skills