As Opposition Leader Peter Dutton champions the prospect of nuclear power for Australia, the proposal has sparked intense debate. While his Coalition’s modelling is ambitious, critics have pointed out glaring discrepancies in its assumptions, such as optimistic costings and a significantly lower forecasted demand for electricity compared to official projections. Beneath the political rhetoric, however, lies a critical question: Will Australia embrace a clean energy future or cling to coal and gas under the guise of nuclear ambition?
The Long Road to Nuclear Power
Even if Australia were to embark on Dutton’s nuclear journey today, the country wouldn’t see tangible results for decades. International examples underline the protracted timelines involved. In the United Arab Emirates, initial studies for nuclear power began in 2006. Construction approvals followed in 2012, with reactors only coming online between 2020 and 2024. Similarly, Czechia’s efforts to replace ageing reactors, initiated in 2020, project commercial operation by 2038 at the earliest.
Australia, unlike France or Czechia, lacks a foundational nuclear regulatory framework. Establishing this infrastructure, securing public support, and overcoming state-level resistance would likely take longer than other nations’ experiences. By the time construction could begin—realistically the 2030s—our ageing coal-fired power plants would be well past their use-by date. What happens to the energy gap until then?
Filling the Gap: Coal and Gas to the Rescue
The Coalition’s plan heavily relies on prolonging the lifespan of coal and expanding gas production to meet Australia’s energy needs while nuclear infrastructure is developed. But this approach comes with significant downsides. Extending the operation of coal plants would require billions of dollars in upgrades to outdated infrastructure, all while generating greater emissions and sidestepping Australia’s climate commitments.
Moreover, Dutton has already signalled a willingness to curtail renewable energy progress. His proposal to scrap plans for an offshore wind farm zone in Illawarra, New South Wales, is a glaring example. Offshore wind energy, with its higher efficiency and reliability compared to onshore alternatives, is a critical component of Australia’s renewable energy puzzle. Such actions suggest a strategy that prioritises coal and gas while sidelining the transformative potential of renewables.
The Costs of Nuclear vs. Renewables
Dutton’s nuclear vision also faces tough economic scrutiny. A single reactor in Czechia, for instance, is projected to cost A$12.8 billion, producing power at an estimated A$225 per megawatt-hour. By comparison, the CSIRO estimates firmed renewable energy—complemented by storage and transmission infrastructure—costs between A$91 and A$131 per megawatt-hour. These figures demonstrate that nuclear energy remains a significantly more expensive alternative to renewables, even with ideal conditions.
Countries like France, long regarded as leaders in nuclear energy, are facing challenges too. France’s ambitious plan to build up to 14 new reactors is already encountering delays, cost blowouts, and logistical hurdles. If nations with established nuclear expertise struggle to expand their fleets, the barriers for Australia are even higher.
The Risks of Doubling Down on Fossil Fuels
Pursuing nuclear power under current timelines could inadvertently deepen Australia’s reliance on fossil fuels. Ageing coal plants are already plagued by frequent breakdowns, leading to heightened risks of blackouts. Prolonging their operation would necessitate costly maintenance and upgrades, further entrenching coal in the energy mix. Gas-fired power, often touted as a “bridge fuel,” would likely step in to fill immediate energy demands, locking Australia into decades of fossil fuel dependency.
This scenario is not hypothetical. Queensland’s recently elected Liberal National Party government has already allocated A$1.4 billion to support coal while shelving plans for a major pumped-hydro facility. These policy decisions demonstrate how a pivot to nuclear could delay—and even derail—Australia’s transition to a clean energy future.
A Better Path Forward
Australia cannot afford to be distracted by the nuclear debate at such a critical juncture. As the global climate crisis intensifies, the nation must focus on accelerating renewable energy adoption. Offshore wind, solar, and storage technologies are proven, cost-effective solutions that can deliver cleaner, more reliable power than nuclear—without the decades-long wait.
Dutton’s nuclear proposal may serve as a political fig leaf, obscuring the real issues of emissions reduction and energy reliability. But the stakes are too high for political posturing. The path forward lies not in clinging to coal and gas, but in doubling down on renewables, ensuring Australia meets its climate goals and secures a sustainable energy future.
Article information source: The Conversation - More coal and gas, less renewables: what a nuclear power plan for Australia would really mean
