Why is everyone talking about nuclear energy?

Australia is facing an important energy debate at a critical juncture: how to replace the nation’s ageing fleet of coal-fired power plants and shift the electricity grid to net zero emissions by 2050?

As the next election nears, the Albanese government is doubling down on its plan to vastly expand the share of wind and solar in the grid, backed up by storage and fast-start gas plants.

But the Coalition has opened a new front in the long-running climate wars, proposing to unwind the prohibition on nuclear energy and add seven nuclear power stations to Australia’s future energy mix.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is calling on Australians to back a $331 billion proposal to establish a nuclear energy industry. Under this plan, taxpayer funds would be used to develop the necessary nuclear infrastructure, Dutton promising that the cost of the nuclear push would be around $260 billion less than the government’s current plan to roll out renewable energy.

How does nuclear power work?

Nuclear energy comes from the nucleus, or core, of atoms, and can be produced in two ways: fission, in which atoms split into smaller parts, and fusion, in which atoms combine. Today, nuclear energy used to produce electricity comes from nuclear fission, which releases heat to produce steam that flows into turbines, spins their blades and generates electricity.

What are the pros and cons of nuclear power?

If the goal is to reduce our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is an option some say is worth discussing. Nuclear can produce large amounts of reliable electricity without releasing planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In a greener grid that will increasingly rely on solar and wind resources, the ability of nuclear to provide around-the-clock electricity could be an important addition to Australia’s energy mix to keep supply and price stable when wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

When it comes to the drawbacks of using nuclear energy, several key concerns are often highlighted. The first is that nuclear is one of the most expensive forms of electricity. CSIRO modelling shows that, adjusted for Australian conditions, a traditional large-scale nuclear plant that was operational 90 per cent of the time would generate electricity at $155 a megawatt hour. If it runs for 50 per cent of the time, it would cost $252 a megawatt hour. Meanwhile, the CSIRO finds a grid with 90 per cent renewable energy would produce electricity for between $106 and $150 a megawatt hour, with new transmission lines as well as batteries and gas plants to back up wind and solar farms.

The second concern is the time that the first nuclear facility would take to build. Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien insists Australia’s first could be built by 2037 at the latest. The CSIRO and Australia’s energy market operator, however, say it would take at least 50 per cent longer and cost at least $16 billion. As Australia’s biggest energy companies argue, such long timelines render nuclear an impractical solution to the grid’s most pressing needs because it could not be developed in time to replace coal. Across the country, coal-powered generators, whose ageing and emissions-intensive equipment is becoming less reliable and less competitive against cheaper sources of energy, are increasingly bringing forward closure dates and are expected to have exited the grid entirely by 2040.

Past accidents have undermined public confidence, too. An explosion at a plant near Chernobyl in the former USSR in 1986 resulted in radioactive contamination spreading over Western Europe.Credit: Getty Images

While atomic fission does not cause harmful greenhouse gas emissions, opponents of nuclear energy point to other dangers associated with storing radioactive waste and the potential for spent fuel from nuclear reactors to be used to make nuclear weapons. Past accidents have undermined public confidence, too. An explosion at a plant near Chernobyl in the former USSR in 1986 blew radioactive contamination over western Europe. A tsunami following an earthquake triggered a meltdown in a coastal nuclear plant in Fukushima in 2011.

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency says nuclear power plants are among the safest facilities in the world.

Why would it cost so much?

Dutton has framed his nuclear energy plan as a cost-saving measure, claiming that his $331 billion proposal would be about $260 billion – or 44 per cent – cheaper than the government’s current plan for rolling out renewable energy.

Dutton argues that his plan will benefit Australians by ultimately lowering energy prices. However, on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed the proposal as a “nuclear fantasy” that wouldn’t be available until the 2040s.

“The truth is, renewables are the cheapest form of new energy. Everyone knows that, and science backs it up,” Albanese said on ABC radio.

At a press conference in Brisbane on Friday, opposition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien acknowledged that the opposition couldn’t specify how much power bills would decrease under its nuclear plan, which was modelled by Frontier Economics, but argued that they would decline “over time”.

Why is Peter Dutton pushing for it?

For more than a decade, the Coalition has questioned the economics of renewable energy, and there is broad party room support for a less-ambitious renewables rollout.

Dutton says including nuclear in the energy mix will reduce the need for so many new renewable energy generators and transmission lines to be built. There is also a core base of rusted-on fossil fuel backers in the dominant right wing of the Liberal and Nationals parties, which support the greater use of gas and coal on the road to net zero.

Under Dutton’s proposal, seven nuclear facilities would be built on the sites of former coal power plants in Lithgow and the Hunter Valley in NSW, Loy Yang in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia, and Port Augusta in South Australia. Dutton has previously stated that these facilities would be funded and owned by the federal government, with operations expected to begin by 2050.

What do Australians think about it?

Exclusive polling conducted for this masthead by the Resolve Political Monitor revealed that only 21 per cent of voters favoured taxpayer investments or subsidies for nuclear power. Renewable energy garnered greater support, with 45 per cent of voters in favour of subsidies for rooftop solar, and 34 per cent backing subsidies for home batteries – an option that Labor is considering as part of its election policy for the upcoming year.

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.