Nuclear power: the distraction Australians can’t afford?
Nuclear power is touted as a solution for Australia’s energy transition, but it fails to meet today’s critical tests of speed, affordability, and climate impact. As our energy system rapidly evolves to address urgent emissions and reliability needs, investing in nuclear risks diverting essential resources and focus away from more viable solutions. We must ask ourselves: can Australia afford to be distracted in the race to secure its energy future?
For decades, countries around the world have used nuclear power as a tool to produce electricity. In Australia, we could have taken the same path. Instead, we chose to use our cheap, plentiful coal to generate power. As Australia faces new energy needs, nuclear power is again on the table, underpinned by our abundant uranium resources. But should we deploy this tool?
The primary goal: emissions reduction
What’s the job we’re now building our power systems to do? Firstly, it’s reducing greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible. Indeed, this goal is the driving force behind the transformation of our energy system.
For Australia, developing nuclear power would take at least a decade, likely longer. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton acknowledges that during this build-up period, “lots more coal and gas” will remain in the mix [1]. The associated emissions will have a compounding, negative effect, the opposite of what we need to achieve.
So, on this first critical test, nuclear power falls short.
The second goal: energy security
A second, linked objective for our energy policy is security—having a reliable power supply is fundamental to prosperity and growth. Once established, nuclear power can deliver, but it won’t be enough to meet our needs alone.
Current proposals suggest building up to seven nuclear plants, which could, at most, supply 20% of our future power demand [2]. Today, coal-fired plants meet 60% of Australia’s electricity needs, with renewables filling the rest. Nuclear energy would not cover the gap left by the 90% of coal-fired power capacity set to retire by 2035 [3].
On this front, too, nuclear energy fails to meet our requirements over the medium term.
The economics of nuclear power don’t add up
After emissions and security, the third test is economic viability. Do the economic benefits outweigh the costs?
Currently, even optimistic projections estimate that nuclear power costs twice as much as fully firmed renewable energy including transmission expenses [4,5]. If substantially more (expensive) gas is required to complement nuclear, it must come from projects that haven’t yet broken ground through transmission pipelines that don’t exist. This would add billions of dollars to the cost equation.
From an economic perspective, accounting for the longer life span of nuclear power plants (circa 80 years) makes little difference to the business case. The standard practice of discounting reduces future costs and benefits to near-zero after 30–40 years [5].
Again, nuclear power struggles to meet a key criterion.
Future generations financing nuclear power
While nuclear power doesn’t pass the economic test, a case may be made for it to proceed based on notions of its (non-economic) public value. In this situation, attention then turns to how best to finance nuclear power.
Initially, Shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, insisted nuclear power plants would be “commercially viable” and built without taxpayer subsidies [6]. Peter Dutton now concedes they would be funded and owned by government, with their up-front cost “ammortised over 80 years”.
Estimates suggest this would add a minimum of $116 billion to Australia’s federal debt of $897 billion [7]. This would escalate debt repayments, already exceeding $112 billion over five years, equivalent to $8,235 per taxpayer. States and territories are on track to reach record net debt per capita [8], with little desire to absorb additional debt. Higher debt levels can divert money away from other public services (like health and education) and lead to increased taxes and inflation.
To keep nuclear power affordable, the government would likely enter long-term contracts to sell power at low prices, requiring taxpayers to cover revenue shortfalls. Future generations could bear a significant financial burden. And let’s remember: nuclear would only address 20% of our power needs. Australia will still need renewables and transmission infrastructure [9].
Why are we still talking about nuclear power?
Despite failing on climate, security, economic, and (potentially) financing grounds, nuclear power remains on the political agenda. Why? Here are four possible reasons:
• Proponents dismiss the science of climate change and urgency for action.
• Supporting nuclear power indirectly supports the (shorter-term) jobs and interests of the coal and gas sectors.
• Proposals for nuclear power are more a political strategy than an energy strategy.
• Proponents perceive other unstated threats to Australia’s energy security that would justify (potentially a much larger fleet of) nuclear power plants.
Irrespective, it is reasonable to demand credible answers to this basic question.
Keeping nuclear power in the mix
Over the medium to longer term, nuclear power should remain on Australia’s list of prospective energy sources. No doubt there will be ongoing improvement in the suite of energy technologies available to us, including solar power, batteries and nuclear power. If the economics of nuclear plants substantially improve, nuclear power could play a useful role in meeting Australia’s energy demands.
Conclusion
The claim that “nuclear power is our only chance to reach net zero by 2050” [1] is flawed. Nuclear power fails to meet critical climate, security, and economic goals, and financing several plants may be similarly challenged.
In the absence of magical solutions to the time and financial costs of nuclear power, Australia’s energy strategy must remain grounded in pragmatic solutions tailored to our unique energy environment. The stakes are too high to get distracted.