What you said over Labor criticism of Coalition nuclear waste plan

The two major parties continue to clash over nuclear power, and now readers are having their own war of words. HAVE YOUR SAY

The two major parties continue to clash over nuclear power, and now readers are having their own war of words.

Labor has claimed the Coalition’s failure to account for the handling of radioactive waste produced under its nuclear power plan has blown a $14 billion “hole” in its costings.

Transporting the waste produced by the seven nuclear power stations the opposition has pledged to build by 2050 the same way Australia currently does at its only research reactor would cost an average of $345 million a year – or $13.8bn over 40 years of operation, which is the average age of reactors in the US.

The Coalition has disputed the government’s figures, which were based on assumptions each power station would only have one reactor, the amount of waste produced would be equivalent to the US average of 21.5 metric tonnes a year and that the radioactive material and spent fuel would only be handled once a decade.

Mr Dutton has defended the modelling behind his nuclear plan. Picture Thomas Lisson/NewsWire

The $331bn figure in the independent costings of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal produced by Frontier Economics does not factor in waste management.

Asked about the radioactive waste on Monday, Mr Dutton said it would be disposed of safely, noting Australia already currently dealt with such material produced by the Lucas Heights medical and research nuclear facility in Sydney.

Labor Senator Tim Ayres said it was clear the Coalition’s “expensive” nuclear reactor scheme had “holes in it”.

Readers were quick to make up their own minds, with many insisting Labor is simply papering over their own cracks by attacking the Coalition.

Others, meanwhile, claimed nuclear power is the only way to go, however some suggested it was too dangerous and shouldn’t be considered.

See what you had to say below and join the conversation >>>

WHAT YOU SAID

Labor’s a joke

Concerned

Amazing how Labor can pick holes in libs nuclear costings but can’t even do a business case or costing for its unreliable renewables which have gone from billions to trillions which does not include replacement and disposal costs every 15 years

Chas

If journalists and the media are going to scrutinise the Coalition’s nuclear policy and costings, then surely we have a right to the same scrutiny placed on Labor and the Greens renewables costings?

CHRIS

I don’t believe a thing this labor government says.

Leone

Albo is totally against nuclear because he can’t pronounce it!

Malcolm

Albo and Bowen are quick off the mark to tell; us how much they believe Dutton’s Nuclear plan will cost but conveniently overlook telling us the real cost of their renewables plan has cost to date and what the final cost will be.

An aerial view of the site of a proposed nuclear power plant in Port Augusta, Australia. Picture: Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

I’m keen on nuclear

Judith

more labor misinformation as part of their smear campaign.

We need nuclear in the mix, as all other countries have found out.

Bryan

Nuclear power is the only way forward and not even considering it, is denying Australians the chance of any comfortable future.

Paul

The Labor Party still won’t release the final cost of the renewable cost. They have no idea. On the other hand, the libs have made an attempt to cost the nuclear plants, which is a lot more than then Labor

Raymond

Each wind turbine costs around 900 million each, and then you need transmission lines. Nuclear is the future.

Paul

Hey Albo- what is the cost of replacing all the solar panels and wind turbine blades every 10 years if they last that long … crickets I hear.

A general view of the Callide Power Station on January 19, 2025 in Biloela, Australia. As Australia approaches the 2025 federal elections, the debate over nuclear power is intensifying, particularly with the Liberal-National Coalition's proposal to establish nuclear energy facilities across the country. Picture: Brook Mitchell/Getty Images

No to nuclear

john

Just think, in about 20,000 years people will be able to safely live in Chernobyl again. Well worth it?

Ole Al

With all the hi-rise buildings being built and all the electric cars around, the so called renewables are going to be useless. We’ll need something more substantial to generate electricity.

Gman

We do not need nuclear power.

We have hundreds of years of coal.

Andrew

Why can’t the coalition find private investors for the Nuclear plants here in Australia. Because Nuclear just doesn’t work in Australia

Jane & Anthony

The Coalition’s nuclear plan is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money.