Australians made a resounding choice at the last election: keep powering on with renewables and storage. Nuclear bombed at the ballot. It was politically toxic, especially with women and undecided voters. Australians have given the ALP its strongest mandate since World War II to roll out more renewable power and storage, better regulate polluters and set new, stronger climate targets.
According to media reports the Federal Coalition’s updated nuclear policy will focus on removing the moratorium on nuclear power and allow for data centre developers to use small modular or micro reactors to power their operations.
“Reheating a policy that voters have already rejected at the ballot box because it was expensive and risky is nonsensical. The cheapest and safest option for Australians is renewable power.”
Amanda Mckenzie, Climate Council CEO
Here’s what you need to know about nuclear power and why it doesn’t make sense for Australia;
Why nuclear reactors are too risky for Australia
1. Nuclear reactors risk our energy security – by failing to replace retiring coal
Coal-fired power stations still supply about half of the electricity in Australia’s main national grid – but they are outdated, unreliable, polluting and the majority are expected to close down by 2035 at the latest. That’s before a single watt of nuclear energy could enter our energy system, given nuclear reactors would take at least 15 years to get up and running in Australia, according to the CSIRO.
The majority of our coal capacity is over 40 years old, and the ability of our generators to reliably produce electricity has dropped off dramatically. Coal outages are already a primary driver of power outage warnings. We need to bring on new sources of energy right now – like solar and wind, backed by big batteries – before the lights go out and our kids’ future goes up in smoke.
Right now, a new wave of data centre development, driven in large part by a surge in demand for artificial intelligence (AI), presents a challenge for our critical shift to renewable energy. Nuclear does not stack up as a power source for our growing data centre industry: it would take far longer to develop than data centres, and would cost at least twice as much as firmed renewables. To protect our energy reliability and power bills, new data centres should be powered by additional renewable energy and storage that matches their energy demand.
2. Going nuclear means Aussies would pay more, for less
Australia’s independent science agency, CSIRO, has found that building solar and wind power backed by storage is the lowest-cost way to meet our electricity needs. Unlike renewables, the cost of building and operating nuclear energy in Australia remains prohibitively high. In fact, independent analysis shows that building nuclear could increase electricity bills by $665 on average, and $972 for a family of four.
In December 2024, the Federal Coalition released its nuclear costings. Unfortunately, as expected, these costing contain a number of misleading assumptions and omissions. Their scheme doesn’t provide enough electricity to meet our needs, underestimates the cost of building and operating nuclear reactors compared to similar nations overseas, and ignores the eyewatering costs of more climate pollution and worsening unnatural disasters. Our analysis found that the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme would cost up to $490 billion more than they’ve estimated and add one billion tonnes more climate pollution from burning more coal and gas while waiting for nuclear reactors.
Pursuing nuclear as a power source for data centres would have significant impacts on power bills. Analysis shows we need to bring on more renewables, fast – not debate solutions that would delay coal closures and increase gas generation: if data centre growth is not matched with new renewable generation and storage, this could increase wholesale prices by more than 20% across our main grid by 2035, on average – and up to 26% in NSW and 23% in Victoria – due largely to the increased reliance on expensive and polluting fossil gas.
3. Nuclear reactor projects often face big cost and timeline blowouts
Around the world, building nuclear reactors are notorious for running overtime and over-budget. For example, the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear energy facility is costing three times more than promised ($90 billion) and running 14 years late (2031 vs 2017).
In the US, NuScale’s Small Modular Reactor in Idaho was expected to cost US$3.6 billion and produce 720 megawatts of electricity. Just three years later, the project cost had blown out to US$9.3 billion while capacity had reduced to 496 megawatts, and the project was ultimately cancelled in 2023.
Importantly, both of these projects were in nations with more than 60 years of experience building nuclear energy, whereas Australia has none.
Australia is already home to at least 162 operational data centres, and there are around 90 new data centres proposals in the pipeline. Nuclear is not a viable option for powering them any time in the foreseeable future.
4. Nuclear reactors pose significant community, environmental and health risks
Radiation from major nuclear disasters, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, have impacted hundreds of thousands of people and contaminated vast areas that take decades to clean up.
While rare, the risk of such disasters in Australia can’t be ruled out, and many of the proposed nuclear sites are already in disaster-prone regions experiencing escalating heatwaves, bushfires, storms and floods – which only exacerbates the risk. Even when a nuclear reactor operates as intended, it creates an expensive long-term legacy of site remediation, fuel processing and radioactive waste storage.
Why should Australians – especially those living in the regional communities which would host reactors – accept these risks when we don’t need to?
5. Nuclear reactors would require massive amounts of water in increasingly drought-prone regions
Nuclear reactors need a lot of water for cooling. For example, a typical 1600 MW nuclear facility uses about 2,000 litres of water per second, equivalent to the daily water use of four households. In a changing climate, with increased risk of droughts in Australia, the significant amounts of water used by nuclear reactors is a significant concern.
At times when water supply is tight, it’s also unclear how the needs of nuclear reactors will be balanced against those of households and farmers. Other countries with nuclear reactors may soon be facing these challenges: 61% of the USA’s nuclear energy facility are expected to face water stress by 2030, potentially forcing them to reduce their generation or even shut down.
In Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, nuclear’s water use is a big concern for many communities.
Using nuclear to power data centres would only compound these risks, with most data centres also requiring large amounts of water for cooling.
6. Climate change threatens our kids’ safety, and we need to be cutting climate pollution now
Climate pollution from burning coal, oil and gas for electricity is overheating our planet and harming our communities right now. Every action taken today to tackle dangerous climate change helps secure a safer future for our kids.
But the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme won’t cut climate pollution. In fact, the Coalition’s own modelling shows that the scheme would produce one billion tonnes more climate pollution by 2050. Incredibly, that’s equivalent to the climate pollution released by running the Eraring coal power station for another 85 years.
Why take that risk when we already have a plan to keep rolling out clean, safe, and abundant renewable power?
Here’s the bottom line: nuclear energy risks our energy security, our economy, the safety of our communities and our kids’ future. It makes no sense for Australia. On the other hand, power from the sun and wind is cheap, abundant, safe and available now. So why risk nuclear – especially when there’s so much we still don’t know? More on that below.
Renewables are safe, clean and successfully cutting climate pollution in our electricity grid right now
Already, about 45% of Australia’s electricity comes from solar, wind and hydropower. This is pushing down power bills: on average, wholesale power from renewables costs half as much as power from coal and gas. This is because unlike fossil fuels, Australia’s abundant wind and sun are widely available resources that never run out.
Research has confirmed that without renewables, Australian household power bills could have been up to $417 (22%) higher in 2024.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) tells us that large-scale solar and wind, backed up by storage (massive batteries and pumped hydro), can provide power 24/7. We can keep accelerating this progress to build a clean grid that’s powered by renewables within the next 10 years.
The best way governments can help Aussies struggling with rising energy costs is to rapidly deliver more lower-cost, clean power, backed by storage like batteries – not delay coal closures and increase gas generation while entertaining a nuclear fantasy.
So why risk going nuclear?
Need more information?
- Read our Submission to: Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia
- Read our report: Clouded Future: Managing the risks of the data centre boom.
If you’re looking for another source of trusted information on nuclear energy, we recommend reading the latest explainer from Australia’s independent science-based information agency, CSIRO.
