{"id":12004,"date":"2025-01-28T10:36:05","date_gmt":"2025-01-27T23:36:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.climatecouncil.org.au\/?p=12004"},"modified":"2025-05-20T15:32:30","modified_gmt":"2025-05-20T05:32:30","slug":"nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.climatecouncil.org.au\/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be\/","title":{"rendered":"Why nuclear energy is not worth the risk for Australia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Update – May 2025:<\/strong> At the 2025 Federal Election, Australians made a resounding choice<\/a>: 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don’t yet know whether the Liberal Party will get behind the renewables and storage that Australians want, or keep pursuing a nuclear fantasy, but the National Party has indicated they will keep promoting nuclear. We’ll keep you up to date as each party’s policy is announced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n\n\n

Federal Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and the Liberal-National Coalition have said that, if they win the next Federal Election, they would attempt to build nuclear reactors in communities around Australia to produce electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s what you need to know about this risky energy scheme:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Why nuclear reactors are too risky for Australia<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

1. Nuclear reactors risk our energy security \u2013 by failing to replace retiring coal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Coal-fired power stations still supply about half<\/a> of the electricity in Australia\u2019s main national grid \u2013 but they are outdated, unreliable,<\/a> polluting and expected to close down by 2038 at the latest<\/a>. That\u2019s before a single watt<\/em> 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>. Coal outages are already a primary driver of power outage warnings. We need to bring on new sources of energy right now \u2013 like solar and wind, backed by big batteries \u2013 before the lights go out and our kids\u2019 future goes up in smoke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
How ageing coal is worsening the risk of blackouts, and pushing up power prices<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

2. Going nuclear means Aussies would pay more, for less <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Australia\u2019s independent science agency, CSIRO, has found that building solar and wind power backed by storage is the lowest-cost<\/a> way to meet our electricity needs. Unlike renewables, the cost of building and operating nuclear energy in Australia remains prohibitively high<\/a>. In fact, independent analysis<\/a> shows that building nuclear could increase electricity bills by $665 on average, and $972 for a family of four.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2024, the Federal Coalition released its nuclear costings. Unfortunately, as expected<\/a>, these costing contain a number of misleading assumptions and omissions. Their scheme doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s nuclear scheme would cost up to $490 billion more than they\u2019ve estimated<\/a> and add one billion tonnes more climate pollution from burning more coal and gas while waiting for nuclear reactors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why should Australians pay more for less?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Economic meltdown: Counting the real cost of Peter Dutton\u2019s nuclear fantasy<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

3. Nuclear reactor projects often face big cost and timeline blowouts<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Around the world, building nuclear reactors are notorious for running overtime and over-budget. For example, the UK\u2019s Hinkley Point C nuclear energy facility is costing three times more than promised<\/a> ($90 billion) and running 14 years late (2031 vs 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the US, NuScale\u2019s 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<\/a> in 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Importantly, both of these projects were in nations with more than 60 years of experience building nuclear energy, whereas Australia has none.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Nuclear reactors pose significant community, environmental and health risks<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While rare, the risk of such disasters in Australia can\u2019t be ruled out, and many of the proposed nuclear sites are already in disaster-prone regions experiencing escalating heatwaves, bushfires, storms and floods \u2013 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why should Australians \u2013 especially those living in the regional communities which would host reactors \u2013 accept these risks when we don\u2019t need to?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

5. Nuclear reactors would require massive amounts of water in increasingly drought-prone regions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, equivalent to the daily water use of four households<\/a>. In a changing climate, with increased risk of droughts in Australia<\/a>, the significant amounts of water used by nuclear reactors is a significant concern. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At times when water supply is tight, it\u2019s 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\u2019s nuclear energy facility are expected to face water stress by 2030<\/a>, potentially forcing them to reduce their generation or even shut down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, nuclear\u2019s water use is a big concern for many communities. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. Climate change threatens our kids\u2019 safety, and we need to be cutting climate pollution now<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the Federal Coalition\u2019s nuclear scheme won\u2019t cut climate pollution.  In fact, the Coalition\u2019s own modelling<\/a> shows that the scheme would produce one billion tonnes more climate pollution by 2050. Incredibly, that\u2019s equivalent to the climate pollution released by running the Eraring coal power station for another 85 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why take that risk when we already have a plan to  keep rolling out clean, safe, and abundant renewable power?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Bushfire in Queensland<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Here\u2019s the bottom line: nuclear energy risks our energy security, our economy, the safety of our communities and our kids\u2019 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 \u2013 especially when there\u2019s so much we still don\u2019t know? More on that below.<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n
subscribe to the climate council to get the facts on the latest climate and energy news<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

What we still don\u2019t know about the Federal Coalition\u2019s nuclear scheme<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Coalition\u2019s energy scheme was first announced back in June 2024, but there are still more questions than answers, including:<\/p>\n\n\n\n