top of page

Nuclear or Unclear?

The myths and flaws of the Liberal and National Party's proposal for nuclear energy as the answer to Australia's future energy needs and emissions reduction commitments.

Too Little

They propose less than 10 Gigawatts of capacity but Australia will need nearly 300Gw by 2050 (see reference [1] below). Where will the rest of it come from if they  scale back renewable energy?

Too Late

No expert - none -says that we could implement our first nuclear power station before 2040 nor complete them all before the late 2040s. How will this replace the 22Gw of coal-fired generation that will all be retired by the mid-2030s?

Too Costly
To Build

Recent projects in advanced Western nations end up costing $15-25 billion per Gigawatt, leading to:

  • Construction costs of $105-250 billion for 7-10 Gw of nuclear output.

Our coal-fired power station lives will have to be extended for 15 years until nuclear power is online, at a cost of $2-3 billion for each of 12 coal-fired power stations, leading to:

  • Coal-fired refurbishment costs of $24-36 billion; paid by the operator.....

  • .....but recovered from consumers over 15 with added profit/risk margin so that.....

  • .....the final cost to consumers would be $35-55 billion.

Electricity from these coal-fired power stations will be twice as costly as renewables, requiring Government subsidies of $4-6 billion pa to them so they are able to compete, leading to:

  • Coal operating subsidies of $60-90 billion over 15 years.

  • Total cost of nuclear implementation of 7-10Gw = $189-$376 billion!

 What estimates does the Coalition have for the implementation costs of nuclear and coal?

 What estimates does the Coalition have for the costs of subsidies needed for nuclear and coal?

Too Costly
To Operate

Both CSIRO [2] and Lazard [4] show the wholesale cost of nuclear electricity at 2-3 times that from renewables supported by firming capacity, with the cost trends for nuclear going up whilst those for renewables are going down. How much operating subsidy will nuclear plants require to compete in an open market? Will the Government intervene in the market to advantage nuclear and restrict renewables?

Does nothing to reduce our emissions

They claim nuclear will address our emissions reductions (ER) targets so we can step back from current commitments for 10-15 years and let nuclear solve it in from 2040. However:

  • Global opinion is adamant that urgent reductions are needed within the next 5-10 years.

  • The European Union has introduced tariffs on imports from nations with weak ER plans,

  • The electricity sector is under a third of our emissions [6].

  • Extending the life of coal-fired power stations will add 2.3 billion tonnes over 15 years [7].

 Does the Coalition have an emissions reduction plan for for the 5-10 years?

 Has the Coalition calculated how we will meet our international obligations?

Has the Coalition examined the economic impact of walking away from our ER commitments?

Nuclear waste handling

Nuclear reactors of this size produce 30-100 tonnes of radioactive waste which has to be stored on-site for 8-10 years before it cools enough to be tranported, leading to:

  • 300-1000 tonnes of radioactive waste held at Loy Yang at any one time, located on top of an earthquake fault line.

  • Potentially 60,000 tonnes if they don't build a secure waste storage facility.

Only one nation (Norway) has commenced construction of a secure, long-term (thousands of years) nuclear waste storage facility. What costings have the Coalition done on such a waste storage facility?

SMRs still a
long way off

They say they can deploy a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) by 2035 but ATSE [5] says:

  • there are no licensed designs, or constructed or operating SMRs in any OECD countries;

  • the reliability of publicly available information on non-OECD designs is questionable;

  • projected costs and performance could only be accurately demonstrated once full-scale prototype SMRs are built;

  • it is possible that several prototype SMRs may be licenced, commissioned and built in OECD countries by the mid-2030s;

  • Commercial releases could commence by the late 2030s to mid-2040s, with a mature market likely emerging during the mid to late 2040s;

  • the least risky option would be to procure them after several designs have been commercialised and successfully operated in other OECD countries.

The only OECD SMR project (Nuscale UAMPS) was cancelled in 2023 after the intended customers balked at the rising cost of electricity from it.​ Why does the Coalition believe it can commission SMRs by 2035?

Re-use current  sites whilst still running

They say they can re-use existing coal-fired power station sites as they are retired, saving the need for new transmission lines and infrastructure leading to:

  • The existing transmission lines are already over-loaded with existing renewables output.

  • They need coal to continue into the 2040's so how does re-use work in this scenario?

?

xxxx

?

xxxx

Misleading statements they keep making to justify nuclear

  1. Claim: "we won't meet our emissions targets so no point continuing with them". Reality: Our 2030 target is 40% reduction on 2005 levels. Current initiatives will deliver 37% and planned ones will deliver 41%. Why do they claim this is impossible?

  2. Claim: "renewables are wrecking the economy". Reality: renewables are making the price of electricity much lower than it would have been using new-build or life-extended coal-fired power stations. Where is the evidence you rely upon to support this claim?

  3. Claim: "need 28,000km of transmission lines for renewables". Reality: AEMO's ISP [1] states "10,000 km of new transmission would be needed by 2050". 

  4. Claim: "[renewables] rollout will cost $1.2-1.5 trillion". Reality: AEMO's ISP [1] states "The annualised capital cost of all utility-scale generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure in the ODP has a present value of $122 billion (Step Change scenario to 2050)". This is the total cost to get total capacity to 300Gw by 2050.

  5. Claim: yyyyyyyy. Reality:

  6. Claim: yyyyyyyy. Reality:

Experts, facts and science, not politicians or PR

Here are some reality- and science-based reports we use to support the above. Each has a short executive summary which should give you a good introduction to their subject.

  1. Australia's Integrated System Plan is a whole-of-system plan that provides an integrated roadmap for the efficient development of the National Electricity Market (NEM) over the next 20 years and beyond via several scenarios.

  2. CSIRO's GenCost report analyses the true cost ranges of all energy forms in Australia to 2050.

  3. World Nuclear Industry Status report is an independent, detailed assessment ofthe state of nuclear operation, costs and directions.

  4. Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy Version report provides comparative energy prices analysis for various generation, storage and hydrogen technologies on a $/MWh basis, including sensitivities for tax subsidies, fuel prices, carbon pricing and the cost of capital.

  5. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering Small Modular Reactors report summarises the state of technical development and Australian context for small modular nuclear reactors in 2024.

  6. Australia’s emissions projections 2023 report (DCCEW) provides the latest estimates of Australia’s future greenhouse gas emissions to 2035. They show how Australia is tracking against its 2030 emissions reduction commitments by examining the potential impacts of policies and measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

  7. Solutions for Climate Australia's Nuclear Disaster report analyzes the impact of the Coalition's nuclear energy proposal around SMRs.

bottom of page