Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberal-National Coalition have said that, if they win the next Federal Election, they will attempt to build nuclear reactors in communities around Australia to produce electricity.
Here’s what you need to know about this risky energy scheme:
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Coal-fired power stations still supply about half of the electricity in Australia’s main national grid – but they are outdated, unreliable, polluting and expected to close down by 2038 at the latest.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.
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.
2. Going nuclear means Aussies pay more, for less
Australia’s independent science information 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. The Federal Coalition has so far withheld costings for its nuclear scheme, but experts estimate it would cost Australian taxpayers at least $116 billion, and up to $600 billion while only meeting 15% of the electricity Australia needs (Climate Council analysis, assuming 10 GW of nuclear capacity is built in the NEM by 2050, with a capacity factor of 89%. Forecast demand based on the 2024 Step Change scenario from AEMO’s ISP).
Why should Australians pay more for less?
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.
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 annual 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 will 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.
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, experts estimate the scheme could see a further 1.5 billion tonnes of climate pollution produced by 2050 – the equivalent of running the Eraring coal power station in NSW for another 126 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.
GET THE FACTS
Subscribe to the Climate Council today to stay in-the-know on the latest climate news, research and ways you can take action to cut climate pollution.
For information on why we collect and how we will use or disclose the personal information you have provided in this email subscription form, please see our Email Subscription Form Collection Notice here. Our Privacy Policy is also available here.
What we know about the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme and proposed locations:
The Federal Coalition has proposed building seven nuclear reactors at the sites of existing or former coal-fired power stations.
Check out the proposed location of each site on Google Maps:
- Liddell, about 100km from Newcastle in New South Wales
- Mount Piper, about 100km from Sydney in New South Wales
- Loy Yang, about 7km from Traralgon in Victoria
- Tarong, about 130km from Brisbane in Queensland
- Callide, about 90km from Gladstone in Queensland
- Collie, about 60km from Bunbury in Western Australia
- About 6km from Port Augusta in South Australia
What we still don’t know about the Federal Coalition’s nuclear scheme
The Federal Coalition’s energy scheme was first announced back in June 2024, but there are still more questions than answers, including:
- How would the Coalition keep the lights when our ageing coal-fired power plants retire by 2038 and nuclear energy wouldn’t come online until the 2040s?
- How much will this energy scheme cost Australian families and businesses?
- How will this scheme to build the most expensive new energy – nuclear – impact power prices?
- How would the Federal Government overturn State Government bans on nuclear activity?
- How will the safety of communities living and working near the facilities be protected, especially as climate change increases the frequency and severity of unnatural disasters?
- How will water be shared between nuclear reactors, farmers and communities during droughts?
- Where and how will nuclear waste be stored?
- How much more climate pollution will be produced under this proposal?
Renewables are safe, clean and successfully cutting climate pollution in our electricity grid right now
Already, about 40% of Australia’s electricity comes from solar, wind and hydropower. More than 4 million Australian households have put solar panels on their roof, and together they are saving $3 billion a year on electricity bills.
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.
So why risk going nuclear?
Need more information?
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.
