eWISE Blog

Wind energy is often hailed as a cornerstone of the renewable energy revolution—a clean, sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. However, there’s a hidden side to wind energy that rarely makes headlines. Beneath the promises of clean energy and sustainability lies a trail of environmental consequences, resource consumption, and waste management challenges that are often overlooked. Let’s dig into the reality of wind energy and its true cost to the environment and society.

One of the most glaring issues with wind energy is the disposal of turbine blades. These massive blades, often over 200 feet long, are made from fibre-reinforced composites that cannot be economically recycled. As a result, when they reach the end of their 20-year lifespan, they are buried in landfills. Bulldozers, like the little yellow one in the image, are often used to bury these enormous blades. While this may come as a surprise to many, it is a reality of green energy infrastructure that is rarely discussed.

Currently, there is no scalable, cost-effective way to recycle wind turbine blades. This disposal problem is only getting worse as more turbines are installed worldwide. Special landfills are already running out of space, and this is with only a small percentage of the world’s energy currently coming from wind. Imagine the landfill crisis we’ll face when more turbines reach the end of their life cycle.

The average wind farm consists of around 150 turbines. Each turbine requires a footprint of about 1.5 acres, meaning a single wind farm needs 225 acres of land. To power a city the size of Sydney, Australia, approximately 3,800 turbines would be needed…equating to 57,000 acres of land.

This land isn’t just empty space. It often requires clear-cutting forests or displacing agricultural land to make way for turbines. Trees, which naturally help absorb carbon dioxide and provide habitat for wildlife, are cut down because they create barriers and turbulence that interfere with the sustained wind speeds necessary for turbines to function efficiently. Ironically, in the pursuit of green energy, we’re damaging ecosystems and reducing natural carbon absorption capabilities.

A little-known fact about wind turbines is that they require oil to function. Each turbine needs approximately 80 gallons of synthetic oil for lubrication and this oil must be replaced annually. The oil used is not a plant-based or environmentally friendly product; it’s a PAO (polyalphaolefin) synthetic oil derived from crude oil.

To put this into perspective, powering a city the size of Sydney would require 3,800 turbines, consuming about 304,000 gallons of refined oil every year. Now multiply that by the number of cities across Australia, and you start to see the massive oil consumption required to maintain these “clean energy” solutions. This dependency on oil ties wind energy back to the very fossil fuel industry it aims to replace.

The wind energy industry is heavily subsidised by governments, using taxpayer money to fund what is often seen as a cleaner, greener alternative to fossil fuels. However, these subsidies mask the hidden costs of wind energy, including its reliance on oil, the environmental impact of land use, and the growing waste disposal problem.

It’s worth asking: did the manufacturers of wind turbines know about these issues from the start? If they did, why haven’t they been more transparent about the challenges? The answer may lie in the billions of dollars in government subsidies that keep the industry afloat. Admitting to these shortcomings could jeopardise that funding.

Building, installing, maintaining, and eventually decommissioning wind turbines requires heavy machinery that runs on petroleum-based fuels. From the cranes used to erect turbines to the trucks that transport them, every step of the process depends on fossil fuels. Even the removal and disposal of turbine blades involve diesel-powered equipment.

The irony is hard to ignore: the green energy industry relies on fossil fuels at nearly every stage of its lifecycle. This dependence undermines the narrative that wind energy is a clean and sustainable solution to our energy needs.

What happens 20 years from now when thousands of wind turbines reach the end of their lifespan? With no viable recycling options, those massive blades will continue to pile up in landfills. And it won’t stop there every 20 years, the cycle will repeat, creating an ever-growing waste problem.

As of now, only about 7% of the nation’s energy comes from wind. Imagine if the remaining 93% of energy were to be supplied by wind. The scale of the waste disposal issue would be astronomical. Without significant advancements in recycling technology or alternative materials, we’re setting ourselves up for a long-term environmental disaster.

Another often-overlooked aspect of wind energy is the opposition from communities and politicians who don’t want turbines in their backyard. While wind farms may be promoted as a necessary step toward a greener future, many decision-makers prefer to keep them out of sight. This “NIMBY” (Not In My Backyard) mentality highlights the disconnect between advocating for green energy and dealing with its real-world implications.

Wind energy is often portrayed as a clean, eco-friendly alternative to fossil fuels. However, the reality is far more complex. From the oil required to maintain turbines to the land use and waste disposal challenges, wind energy comes with significant environmental costs.

It’s time to have an honest conversation about the true impact of wind energy. While it may be part of the solution to reducing carbon emissions, it’s far from the perfect answer it’s often made out to be. Without addressing the hidden costs and challenges, we risk creating new environmental problems in the name of solving old ones.

As we continue to invest in renewable energy, it’s crucial to ask tough questions about sustainability, transparency, and long-term impact. After all, the future of our planet depends on making informed, responsible choices, not just following the latest green trend.

Kyiv Independent

In a rapid escalation of tensions, NATO jets were scrambled after Russia launched a large-scale missile and drone attack targeting Ukraine’s critical infrastructure near the Polish border. Poland responded decisively to the threat by deploying fighter jets to safeguard its airspace against potential Russian incursions, whether accidental or deliberate.

Key actions by Poland included:

• Activating all available military forces and resources.
• Placing air defence and radar systems on the highest state of readiness.

The attack marked one of the largest assaults on Ukraine’s energy facilities in recent months. Russia launched a total of 117 missiles and drones:

• 77 of these were intercepted and destroyed by Ukraine’s air force.
• Critical infrastructure in the Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk regions sustained significant damage.

The wide-ranging attack saw Russia employ a variety of missiles and drones, highlighting the scale and complexity of its military operations:

• Iskander ballistic missiles launched from the Belgorod region.
• Kalibr missiles fired from the Black Sea.
• Kh-101/Kh-55 cruise missiles from the Volgograd region.
• Shahed attack drones and decoys launched from multiple locations, including Bryansk, Millerovo, Oryol, and Primorsko-Akhtarsk.

Russia’s Justification

The Russian defence ministry claimed that the strikes targeted Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, framing the attack as a response to recent Ukrainian bombardments of Russian territory. Moscow warned of further retaliatory actions should Ukrainian attacks continue.

The assault appeared strategically aimed at Ukraine’s energy grid, exacerbating civilian hardships during the winter months:

• Emergency power outages were reported across six regions.
• Damage to critical infrastructure intensified Ukraine’s ongoing energy crisis.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the strikes and called for immediate international support to bolster Ukraine’s defences:

• Urging partners to provide licenses for the production of air defence systems and missiles.
• Emphasizing the urgent need to strengthen Ukraine’s air defence capabilities to counter future threats.

The escalating conflict and Russia’s increasingly aggressive tactics have heightened tensions in the region, bringing NATO and its member states closer to the brink of direct confrontation with Moscow. The situation remains fluid as both sides brace for further developments.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has pledged to take the “strongest possible action” if Russia has harmed an Australian national captured while fighting for Ukraine

Jenkins’ Capture

Oscar Jenkins, an Australian national, was captured by Russian forces last month while fighting in Ukraine. A video of Jenkins being interrogated by Russian forces emerged, showing him bound and visibly distressed. Struggling with the language barrier, Jenkins identified himself as “a soldier” and mentioned his past roles as a teacher in China and a student in Australia.

Jenkins’ Background

Jenkins, originally from Melbourne, has a diverse and international background. He has worked as a university lecturer in Tianjin, China, since 2017. Inspired to join the Ukrainian cause, Jenkins enlisted with an international brigade among Ukraine’s military ranks.

If reports of his death are confirmed, Jenkins would become the first Australian to die as a prisoner of war in over 50 years. The last recorded case was H. W. Madden during the Korean War in the 1950s.

Albanese’s Response

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned any potential harm to Jenkins as “absolutely reprehensible” and stressed that the Australian government is “seeking urgent clarification” on the situation. He has pledged that Australia will take the “strongest possible action” if it is confirmed that Jenkins has been killed.

Russia’s Response

The Russian embassy in Australia has pointed to a statement made by Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry. Zakharova criticized Australia’s support for Ukraine and stated that the ministry is “monitoring the situation together with the relevant agencies.”

Australia’s Support for Ukraine

Australia has been a committed ally of Ukraine since the war began in February 2022, providing close to $1 billion in financial and military aid. This assistance has included both material support and training for Ukraine’s armed forces.

Prime Minister Albanese’s strong remarks reflect the broader concern within Australia about the potential mistreatment of its citizens abroad and underline the nation’s commitment to holding Russia accountable for any violations of international law.

ED: Below is a Macrobusiness article titled ‘Australian dollar 40s in 2025?’  I know that many members travel O/S … Here’s a simplified summary of the article:

The US Dollar (USD) is expected to keep getting stronger due to solid US economic growth, rising interest rates, and trade policies like tariffs. Recent data and policy shifts have already pushed the Dollar higher than anticipated. Analysts predict another 5% increase in the USD’s value over the next year, driven by strong US performance and new tariffs.

For Australia, the outlook is weaker. The Australian Dollar (AUD) is expected to fall, possibly below 50 US cents in the coming years. This is because of slowing wage growth, economic policies, and dependency on commodities, which are vulnerable to China’s economic slowdown. The contrast between the US’s strong economy and Australia’s weaker position, particularly in productivity and inflation control, amplifies this trend.

The author, David Llewellyn-Smith, suggests that political and economic decisions in Australia, such as fiscal austerity or rate cuts, could further weaken the AUD. If global factors, like slowing demand for Australian resources, worsen, the AUD could face significant challenges into 2026.

Australian dollar 40s in 2025?

David Llewellyn-Smith

Monday 13 January 2025

Goldman is upgrading the US dollar.

USD: All systems still go; upgrading our Dollar forecasts.

In our 2025 Outlook, we wrote that we expected the Dollar to be “stronger for longer” because of a combination of solid US growth, continued support for capital inflows, and more protectionist policies.

Since then, the Dollar has appreciated even faster than we expected.

This has been largely on the back of a shift higher in US policy rate expectations, which tends to be the most supportive environment for the currency.

Looking ahead, the critical questions are to what extent these moves will be validated by the incoming data, and whether they already incorporate our expectations for policy shifts in the coming year, particularly higher tariffs .

While we acknowledge that FX market participants are clearly expecting some degree of tariff policy changes, and it is difficult to disentangle the drivers of recent moves, we maintain that there is more Dollar strength ahead.

In our view, there are three key considerations.

First, it is challenging—if not impossible—for FX markets to fully price tariff risks ahead of time because movements in the CNY fix will be critical for the size and composition of the broad market reaction.

Second, our models assume a negative growth response to these trade policy shifts, but so far the market has instead upgraded the US growth view since the election.

Third, and most timely today, we believe that much of the recent Dollar strength reflects the surprising resilience in the US economy and shifting policy expectations.

We expect the Dollar to rally by about 5% over the coming year on the realization of new tariffs and continued US outperformance.

Even with this upgrade, we still see the risks tilted towards more Dollar strength.

Surprisingly, GS has not downgraded the AUD at the same time. If DXY rises 5% or more, then AUD is almost certain to fall just as much, especially since China tariffs and CNY weakness are the key variables.

As well, while the US interest rate outlook is firming up, the Australian is weakening. The key difference is mass immigration and wage growth that drives services inflation.

US wage growth is sitting firmly around 4% while Australia’s is 3.5% and falling fast. The US is about to evict millions of cheap foreign workers, while Australia is only pretending to cut back on the Indian inundation.

Australia’s labour-market expansion growth model has a much lower neutral interest rate than most economists realise, especially versus a traditional business investment growth model like the US.

Amusingly, the failure of productivity growth in the former versus the latter leads classic economic models to predict worse inflation for Australia.

However, it simply doesn’t work that way in reality. Lower wage growth from the permanent labour supply shock weighs heavily on services inflation in Australia versus the US. This is made worse by the stupid RBA never learning and running too tight initially.

Goods inflation will go the other way as US imports get cheaper and Australian less so. But tariff displacement of Chinese goods seeking new markets should offset any impact from a weak AUD for inflation.

So, how weak will the AUD be in 2025? For the past eighteen months, I have had a forecast of reaching below 50 cents in the next few years.

This was based upon the notion of a rerun of the late-1990s scenarios of a struggling Asia centred on Chinese weakness driving commodity prices lower versus a runaway US dollar based on US tech exceptionalism.

If anything, the looming scenario is even stronger after the US election.

I’d be surprised to see AUD fall so far as the 40s this year, but if the LNP were to win the election and deploy fiscal austerity-chasing rate cuts, then AUD could fall deep into the 50s.

And with the Pilbara killer coming by year’s end, all bets are off for 2026 AUD weakness.

Picture: ‘Land Pub 0.0.3 Chaplaincy in War’ is launched by Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart, centre, with Chaplain Sarah Gibson, left, and Director General Chaplaincy – Army Principle Chaplain Kerry Larwill at Russell Offices in Canberra.

Chaplains have supported Australian soldiers in battle since before the corps’ inception, yet chaplaincy as a wartime capability has not recently been exercised to its full capacity.

During Exercise Talisman Sabre 23, a chaplaincy training review was conducted to demonstrate gaps in the provision of Army chaplaincy in large-scale combat operations.

It became obvious something was needed to address this and refocus the capability on its warfighting role – leaving the dead and dying unattended for example, even when they are only notional dead, is not respectful or honouring of the service these people give.

While chaplaincy on base often centres on the provision of pastoral care, chaplaincy in war has a significant focus on the foundational chaplaincy roles of honouring the dead, comforting the dying, caring for the distressed and supporting all. Chaplaincy is part of the picture in building and maintaining fortitude and resilience in individuals and teams.

It was with this warfighting focus that the publication LPub 0.0.3 Chaplaincy in War was developed to assist chaplains, along with planners and commanders, to understand the role of chaplains across the spectrum of conflict.

Authored by a working group of chaplains, led by Chaplain Sarah Gibson at Forces Command, the publication was supported by the Combat Training Centre and Battle Lab.

Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart launched the publication on December 9, 2024, and emphasised the importance of highlighting the chaplain function within the established training continuum.

“This publication demonstrates the way a capability that had been part of Army since the beginning will now refocus and align with my intent and the requirements of Army and the nation,” Lieutenant General Stuart said.

This important document is the first of its kind for a specialist corps, and will not be the last. It demonstrates how chaplains support soldiers, officers and commanders to achieve their mission in support of Army, the ADF and the nation.

Chaplain Matthew Stuart, of 3rd Brigade, was recognised at the publication’s launch for his significant contribution to its development, and was presented with the Royal Australian Army Chaplains Departmental award, known as the 414 Award.

The Straits Times

A significant ceasefire and hostage deal has been agreed upon between Israel and Hamas, bringing a temporary halt to the brutal conflict that has plagued the region for 15 months. The three-phase deal, confirmed by U.S. President Joe Biden, aims to secure peace, facilitate humanitarian aid, and reconstruct Gaza. While the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is dire, the Australian government must tread cautiously and refrain from accepting refugees from Gaza for several critical reasons.

The Three-Phase Deal: A Path to Stability or a Temporary Reprieve?

The deal consists of three phases. The first phase includes a complete ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza’s populated areas, and the release of hostages held by Hamas, prioritising women, the elderly, and the wounded. In exchange, Israel will release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and allow increased humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The second phase, set to begin in six weeks, aims to achieve a permanent end to the war. During this time, the ceasefire will remain in effect as long as negotiations continue. The third phase involves returning the remains of hostages killed in the conflict and initiating a major reconstruction plan for Gaza.

Despite this apparent progress, the situation remains volatile, with unresolved issues still under negotiation. The ceasefire is fragile, and the likelihood of renewed conflict looms large.

The Risks of Accepting Refugees from Gaza

Australia has a proud history of providing refuge to those fleeing conflict. However, taking in refugees from Gaza poses unique risks that must be carefully considered.

1. Security Concerns

The Gaza Strip has been under the control of Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation by Australia, the U.S., and the European Union. Accepting refugees from a region governed by a terrorist group raises significant national security concerns. It is challenging to thoroughly vet individuals fleeing from such areas to ensure they pose no threat to Australia’s safety.

While the majority of civilians in Gaza are innocent victims of the conflict, the risk of inadvertently admitting individuals with extremist ties cannot be ignored. Australia must prioritise the safety and security of its citizens.

2. Social Integration Challenges

Refugees from Gaza would face substantial social integration challenges in Australia. Many would arrive with traumatic experiences from prolonged exposure to violence, displacement, and loss. These individuals would require extensive support services, including mental health care, housing, and employment assistance.

Moreover, the cultural and political dynamics of the Middle East are complex and may not easily align with Australian values and societal norms. There is a risk of social tension if integration efforts are not carefully managed.

3. Encouraging Regional Solutions

Australia’s focus should be on supporting regional solutions to the Gaza crisis. Neighbouring countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan, are better positioned to provide immediate refuge and support for those fleeing Gaza. These countries share cultural, linguistic, and historical ties with the Palestinian population, making integration more feasible.

By providing financial and logistical support to regional partners, Australia can contribute to a more sustainable and effective solution without taking on the risks associated with accepting refugees from Gaza.

4. Setting a Precedent

Accepting refugees from Gaza could set a precedent that encourages further mass migrations from conflict zones. While compassion is essential, Australia must balance its humanitarian commitments with practical considerations about its capacity to absorb and support new arrivals.

A Balanced Approach: Humanitarian Aid Without Resettlement

Australia can still play a vital role in alleviating the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population without accepting refugees. This can be achieved through:

• Increased Humanitarian Aid: Providing financial assistance to international organizations working on the ground in Gaza to deliver food, medical supplies, and shelter.
• Diplomatic Efforts: Supporting diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving lasting peace in the region.

Conclusion

The ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas is a welcome development, but the situation in Gaza remains precarious. While the plight of Gaza’s civilians is deeply concerning, the Australian government must carefully weigh the risks and challenges associated with accepting refugees from this conflict zone.

Australia’s primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. By focusing on providing humanitarian aid and supporting regional solutions, Australia can uphold its humanitarian values without compromising national security.

Defence Today

The Whyalla steelworks, a historic industrial asset in South Australia, has resumed operations after a challenging four-month shutdown. This restart marks a crucial step forward for the plant, its workforce, and the surrounding community. However, the recent turbulence faced by Whyalla highlights a critical question: why is the federal government not investing more in Australian steelmaking?

In an era marked by geopolitical uncertainty and increasing threats of conflict, Australia’s capacity to produce its own steel is more important than ever. History has repeatedly demonstrated that industrial self-sufficiency is a strategic asset in times of crisis. Steel is the backbone of national infrastructure and defence capabilities—from building ships and armoured vehicles to reinforcing critical infrastructure—and Whyalla’s steelworks should be at the heart of Australia’s national security strategy.

The return to steelmaking at Whyalla is a testament to the determination of its management team and workforce. Led by GFG’s global chief manufacturing officer, Theuns Victor, the “back to black” taskforce worked tirelessly to stabilize the plant and bring it back online. The sight of molten steel being cast once again was described as an emotional moment by Victor, who cautioned that more work is needed to ensure long-term stability.

“The blast furnace is currently running at half its capacity with a number of issues yet to be resolved,” Victor said. “Despite this, I am very confident we will deliver the plant to stability and then to its full capacity, but this will take time and patience.”

Prolonged shutdowns like the one Whyalla experienced can cause significant damage to aging facilities, making restarts a complex and costly process. The return to operations is therefore a significant achievement, but it also underscores the vulnerability of Australia’s steelmaking capacity.

Australia’s reliance on imported steel poses a serious risk to national security. In times of global conflict or economic instability, supply chains can be disrupted, leaving the country vulnerable. The federal government must recognize that steelmaking is not just an industrial issue—it is a matter of national defence.

Countries like the United States and China have long understood the strategic importance of maintaining robust domestic steel industries. Both nations have heavily invested in their steel sectors to ensure they can meet their own infrastructure and defence needs in times of crisis. Australia must follow suit by providing substantial federal support to Whyalla and other steelmakers.

Investing in Whyalla is about more than just preserving jobs in South Australia. It’s about ensuring Australia has the industrial capacity to produce critical materials in times of need. Without a strong domestic steel industry, the nation risks being unable to meet its defence and infrastructure requirements during a conflict.

GFG executive chair Sanjeev Gupta has outlined a vision for Whyalla to become a leader in green steel production. The “back to black” strategy is a stepping stone toward this ambitious goal. Green steel, produced using renewable energy sources and innovative technologies, represents the future of sustainable steelmaking. By investing in Whyalla now, the government can position Australia as a global leader in this emerging field.

The reopening of Whyalla is also good news for the iron ore and coking coal mines that supply it, including the Middleback Ranges operations in South Australia and the Tahmoor coking coal mine in NSW. Supporting Whyalla’s steelworks means supporting a broader ecosystem of industries that are vital to Australia’s economy.

The federal government must take decisive action to secure Australia’s steelmaking future. This includes providing financial support to modernise facilities like Whyalla, investing in research and development for green steel technologies, and implementing policies that prioritise the use of Australian-made steel in infrastructure and defence projects.

As the world becomes more unpredictable, Australia cannot afford to be complacent about its industrial capabilities. The return of Whyalla’s steelworks is a cause for celebration, but it should also serve as a wake-up call. Investing in Whyalla is investing in Australia’s future resilience and security.

In times of peace, steel builds infrastructure. In times of war, steel builds defence. Ensuring Australia’s ability to produce its own steel is not just an economic priority—it is a national imperative.

To prepare for a potential war over Taiwan, the U.S is increasing its military presence in Australia to a level not seen since World War 2. Taiwan is regarded by China as part of its territory and Beijing has vowed to take control of the island by force if necessary. What advantages does Australia’s geography offer the U.S. in a potential fight in the Asia-Pacific region?

Grace Stanke, a highly accomplished nuclear engineer and winner of the Miss America 2023 title, has landed in Australia on a mission to promote nuclear energy. Her visit is part of a campaign organized by Nuclear for Australia, a pro-nuclear advocacy group backed by Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith. Stanke’s unique combination of scientific expertise and public appeal makes her a powerful advocate in the ongoing debate over Australia’s energy future.

Grace Stanke is no ordinary nuclear engineer. Dubbed “the new face of nuclear energy” by the Wall Street Journal, she has also earned a coveted spot on Forbes’ list of influential energy experts under 30. As a public figure, Stanke uses her platform to demystify nuclear energy, explaining its potential as a safe, clean, and reliable power source.

Working for Constellation Energy, the largest operator of nuclear reactors in the United States, Stanke is deeply involved in the practical applications of nuclear technology. Her work includes contributions to the revival of decommissioned plants, such as the infamous Three Mile Island reactor, now being repurposed to support the energy needs of tech giants like Microsoft.

During her Australian tour, Stanke expressed surprise at the level of resistance to nuclear energy in Australia.

“It honestly surprises me that there is such a big debate about this in Australia just because here in America, it’s one of the few things our politicians agree on,” she said. “Whether it is for the sake of clean energy, or for the sake of reliable energy, or for the sake of high-paying jobs for generations to come in the areas around nuclear power plants.”

Australia currently has a decades-long ban on nuclear energy, a policy that both Labor and the Greens support. However, as global energy markets evolve and countries turn to nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions, the debate in Australia has intensified.

Nuclear for Australia, led by 18-year-old Will Shackel, is determined to change public perception. Shackel sees Stanke’s visit as an opportunity to make nuclear energy more relatable to everyday Australians.

“She’s one of the most effective global nuclear advocates,” Shackel said. “And being a woman certainly helps. There’s a huge gender gap when it comes to support for nuclear power, and generally women are less likely to support it. So, having someone like Grace, who’s Miss America and a strong female advocate with a women-in-STEM message, will help resonate with women who might be on the edge in terms of nuclear power.”

Stanke has embraced a playful approach to her advocacy, referring to herself as “Barbenheimer” — a nod to the blockbuster films Barbie and Oppenheimer. Her light-hearted messaging aims to make nuclear energy more accessible and engaging.

“Nuclear power is literally just fancy hot rocks that boil water. That’s it,” she tells her 50,000 Instagram followers in a video.

Her ability to break down complex topics into digestible soundbites has made her a popular figure on social media, where she regularly addresses concerns about safety, waste, and costs.

Stanke’s visit comes at a pivotal time for Australia’s energy debate. With an upcoming federal election, voters will soon decide between Labor’s renewable-focused plan and the Coalition’s proposal to incorporate nuclear power into the nation’s energy grid.

Proponents argue that nuclear power’s reliability and low emissions make it an essential component of a diverse energy mix. Stanke believes Australians should at least have the option to consider nuclear energy.

“That ban should be lifted because Australians should at least give themselves the option,” she said. “Why eliminate options here? The key to a healthy energy grid is a diverse energy grid, and I think it should be up to the Australian people to decide what that looks like.”

In countries like the United States, nuclear energy enjoys bipartisan support as a means of decarbonizing the economy. With the rise of energy-hungry industries such as AI and data centres, nuclear power is being revisited as a stable, long-term solution to meet growing demand.

Stanke’s advocacy aims to replicate this mindset in Australia. By emphasizing nuclear’s potential to provide high-paying jobs, reduce emissions, and ensure energy security, she hopes to shift public opinion.

“This is about the future,” she said. “It’s about ensuring that the next generations have access to reliable, clean energy. I’m here to spark that conversation.”

As Australia grapples with its energy transition, Stanke’s visit highlights the growing global consensus on nuclear power’s role in achieving a sustainable future. Her message is clear: nuclear energy deserves a place at the table.