Opinion

Economics of Coalition’s nuclear modelling are worth nothing

There may well still be good reasons to favour nuclear. But on the basis of this modelling, the economics isn’t one of them.

Steven HamiltonColumnist

Updated Dec 16, 2024 – 3.09pm, first published at Dec 15, 2024 – 3.31pm

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Subscribe now

Already a subscriber?

On Friday, the Coalition finally released the economic modelling underpinning its plan to produce more than a third of our electricity via nuclear by 2050.

I approached the modelling – produced pro-bono by Frontier Economics – with an open mind. I have no issue with nuclear power so long as the economics stack up. To date, I am yet to read a convincing analysis in its favour in the Australian context.

clarification —

Yesterday we published a column “Coalition’s nuclear modelling worth what it cost”. We in no way intended to infer that energy economist Danny Price, Managing Director of Frontier Economics, who produced the report and modelling on nuclear energy’s cost in the NEM, was lying in preparing that report. The AFR does not suggest Mr Price is dishonest. We apologise to Mr Price for any misunderstanding.

Steven Hamilton is assistant professor of economics at George Washington University and visiting fellow at the Tax and Transfer Policy Institute at the ANU.