Future of Energy Report - Nuclear power in Australia_scr

Nuclear power in Australia

ESG Mining Company Index: Benchmarking the Future of Sustainable Mining

In an era where Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards are no longer optional but essential, we present the ESG Mining Company Index. This comprehensive index evaluates 61 of the world’s largest mining companies through 9 meticulously weighted indicators across six critical pillars: Subscribe Now to gain full access to the Mining Company ESG Index and lead the charge toward a more sustainable

Editorial

Group content director Ana Gyorkos

E-mail: ana.gyorkos@aspermont.com

Editor, Future of Energy Russell Yeo

E-mail: russell.yeo@aspermont.com

Editor for content data and research Cathy Mullan E-mail: cathy.mullan@aspermont.com

Data researcher James Gavin

Editorial enquiries

Tel: +44 (0) 208 187 2330 E-mail: editorial@mining-journal.com

Design

Group digital & creative director Abisola Obasanya

Advertising

Group sales director Roger Cooke

Tel: +44 (0) 208 187 2329 E-mail: roger.cooke@aspermont.com

Global customer success manager Aubrey Genova Tel: +61 862 639 171 E-mail: aubrey.genova@aspermont.com

Subscriptions and circulation enquiries

Group sales director Roger Cooke

Tel: +44 208 187 2329 E-mail: roger.cooke@aspermont.com

For Mining Journal subscriptions, please contact Tel: +61 (08) 6263 9100 E-mail: subscriptions@aspermont.com

www.aspermont.com

www.energynewsbulletin.net/category/research-reports

Published by Aspermont Media, WeWork, 1 Poultry, London, EC2R 8EJ, UK

Printed by Stephens & George Magazines, Merthyr Tydfil, UK.

Subscription records are maintained at Aspermont Media Ltd, 21 Southampton Row, London, WC1B 5HA

Managing director Alex Kent

Group chief operating officer Ajit Patel

Group chief financial officer Nishil Khimasia

Group chief marketing officer Joshua Robertson

Aspermont Media, publisher and owner of the Future of Energy Report (‘the publisher’) and each of its directors, officers, employees, advisers and agents and related entities do not make any warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or reliability of any information, estimates, opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in this publication and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the publisher disclaims all liability and responsibility for any direct or indirect loss or damage which may be suffered by any person or entity through relying on anything contained in, or omitted from, this publication whether as a result of negligence on the part of the publisher or not. Reliance should not be placed on the contents of this publication in making a commercial or other decision and all persons are advised to seek independent professional advice in this regard.

© Aspermont Media 2025

The missing ingredient?

Russell Yeo, managing editor, Australia and Energy News Bulletin

Australia, particularly Western Australia where Energy News Bulletin is based, is known as a world leader in not only mining and resources, but also energy.

From the red, iron-rich dirt and the lithium mines in the north of WA, to the coal fields of Queensland and New South Wales, to the offshore oil and gas basins to the south of Victoria – plentiful energy sources seem to be everywhere.

And with seemingly limitless sunshine and open spaces fit for huge solar farms and some of the windiest offshore conditions in the southern hemisphere well suited to a growing wind energy sector, Australia is becoming a world leader in the renewable energy sector too.

But nowhere in Australia do we find any nuclear energy.

There’s plenty of uranium in the ground for sure. In fact, around a third of the world’s uranium deposits are in Australia – mostly in South Australia. As a result, through mining this resource, Australia is the world’s third-biggest producer of uranium, after Kazakhstan and Canada.

There’s even a medical research-focused reactor –the Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) – in the suburbs of Sydney.

But neither the existence of uranium in the ground nor the lonely 20MW reactor in NSW means the country is anywhere near to generating its own nuclear energy.

And the reason for that is the long-standing ban on nuclear power generation, formalised in 1999 with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Prior to that, as the young country matured and came into its own in the 20th Century, the issue had been debated, but always with the same outcome. No nuclear power.

Some argued Australia’s extensive low-cost coal and natural gas reserves meant it was

an unnecessary move. Even formal efforts to establish a nuclear reactor at Jervis Bay in NSW in the late 1960s came to nothing when PM John Gorton was voted out of power in 1971.

And then throughout the heady 1970s, a strong antinuclear movement developed in Australia, focused on not only weapons testing  but also limiting the development of uranium mining and exportation.

Even the efforts of the popular PM John Howard failed, when an awareness of the need to counter global warming first emerged, leading to a renewed –albeit short-lived – interest in nuclear energy in 2007.

And around a decade ago, a Royal Commission established by the then South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill to investigate the state’s future role in a possible nuclear energy sector determined that there was no case for its introduction in the state. But the commission did

recommend the country’s laws banning the creation of nuclear power plants should be repealed.

More recently, the former PM Tony Abbott pushed for legislative changes to allow the construction of nuclear power plants in Australia – still to no avail.

But a quick look at the newspapers in the second half of 2024 would suggest that the issue is the one which preoccupies the minds of the great and the good in Canberra more than any other.

And the reason for that? The pronouncement on June 19, 2024 from Peter Dutton, the current leader of the opposition Coalition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party, that if successful in the 2025 general election he would construct seven nuclear power stations on the sites of seven former coal mines across the country.

Since then, the issue has undoubtedly become a political football (or Sherrin, as we say in Australia), generating endless discussion in newspapers, online and on the radio and television.

And whether it’s the risk to the environment, the huge costs involved or the allegations of

political engineering to stave off the closure of coal-fired power stations, it seems everyone has an opinion.

But where do those lines of division fall? And how do opinions differ from the general population to those presumably more informed and engaged people working within the energy industry?

That is what this report seeks to investigate. By both speaking to individuals and experts in Australia and overseas and by polling people working – pardon the pun – at the coal-face of the energy sector, we hope to tease out what is driving people’s opinions and exactly what those opinions are.

We also examine the political landscape of Australia in 2024, look at the wider APAC region and its embrace of nuclear power and also consider the financial cost and practical viability of a nuclearpowered Australia.

With the need to decarbonise and decarbonise quickly, this issue and the possibility of nuclear energy in Australia is sure to dominate electioneering both up to and beyond the 2025 general election.

The OPAL reactor pool Image: ANSTO/Melissa Richardson

Executive summary

Executive summary

The possibility of nuclear power becoming a reality in Australia ramped up a few notches in June when the leader of the Australian Coalition Peter Dutton declared that – if elected – he would build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of seven former coal mines.

This has lit the blue touchpaper for an intense debate within the energy industry and beyond, about whether nuclear is the right fit for the country, and whether it is achievable and affordable.

With this in mind, in November 2024, ENB engaged with energy and resources industry professionals to assess their views on nuclear energy and understand the industry’s wider concerns. We also engaged with leading nuclear experts from across the world to gauge Australia’s potential.

From the survey, one message rings through loud and clear: respondents working in the energy and resources sector strongly favour nuclear energy having a role in Australia’s future energy mix, even if this position is contested by politicians and the public.

Just over two thirds (67%) said they see nuclear energy as part of Australia’s energy mix in the next 25 years, while an even higher proportion (78.5%)

said they would like to see nuclear energy as part of the country’s energy mix in the next 25 years.

The backdrop to this is a highly polarised climate in which politics and ideology are shaping how decision-makers and the public alike see nuclear.

Our survey suggests there is a widely held view among energy professionals that the debate about the salience of nuclear energy in Australia is not being examined purely on the technical and commercial merits of the technology, but is subject to an increasingly fractious political discourse, in which facts are sometimes at risk of being obscured.

A big majority – eight in ten of our survey participants –think the Australian federal government’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly ideological, whereas less than a fifth (15.8%) say it’s an economic objection. Similarly, just over two thirds (70.8%) of all respondents think the Australian general population’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly ideological

Putting aside the politics, our survey underscored a wider industry sense that nuclear energy is the answer to a conundrum confronted by many countries faced with retiring their coal industries in the push to

Do you support

or

oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?

Strongly oppose (17%)

Don't know (2%)

Somewhat support (34%)

Somewhat oppose (20%)

Source: Lowy Institute

Strongly support (27%)

net zero. Many contend renewables are simply not best placed to provide the backstop energy generation that coal has supplied over the generations.

In this sense, nuclear’s perceived ability to provide baseload energy emerges as the standout attraction.

The survey found almost nine in 10 of all respondents (86.3%) cited the reliability of nuclear energy as a power source as the main benefit/ opportunity of nuclear energy in Australia.

That is not to downplay nuclear’s other benefits. Only a slightly smaller percentage (73.8%) of all respondents cited environmental concerns as the main benefit/opportunity of nuclear energy in

Is your company:

An investment company (3.3%)

An energy company (not producing) (10%)

A mining company (producing) (13%)

A mining exploration/ development company (not producing) (16%)

Source: ENB Nuclear energy attitudinal survey 2024

Australia, with its very low carbon footprint coming to the fore.

Overcoming public scepticism on nuclear is a major challenge facing the industry.

The survey found almost three quarters (73.9%) of respondents citing public opinion as the main barrier to nuclear energy in Australia. However, the public’s sentiment has drifted in favour of nuclear in the context of the rise in energy bills, exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

A poll from the Lowy Institute in 2024 found 37% of Australians were opposed to nuclear, when a similar poll from 2011 showed more than six in ten Australians (62%) were against Australia building nuclear power plants.

Public sentiment is inevitably wound up in the debate around the costings of nuclear energy. Perhaps the biggest issue indentified by the survey is the cost challenge confronting nuclear, particularly in the context of a cost of living crisis.

Indeed, cost was identified by almost half (43.16%) of survey respondents as the main barrier to nuclear energy in Australia, the third-biggest challenge after public opinion and the speed of construction.

Respondents and methodology

Our survey drew responses from 241 individuals, spanning a range of companies and competences. The largest proportion of responses came from

An energy company (producing) (20%)

Other (19%)

An equipment, technology and services provider (19%)

Which best describes your employment level?

Where is your company HQ?

producing energy companies, accounting for almost one in five (10.92%). Next highest was equipment, technology and service providers, (18.67%), and then mining exploration/development companies, (16%).

More than eight in 10 respondents were from the highest level within their companies. With just over 100 responses from board level/executive committee rank, these accounted for a little over two fifths (42%). Senior and middle management accounted for 99 responses, (41%).

In geographic terms, the survey base was heavily Australia biased. Almost four fifths had their company HQ in Australia. Of other countries, New Zealand was next highest with four respondents having their corporate HQ in that country, the remainder coming from other APAC markets. In-country, just over half of respondents were based in Western Australia (52.44%), ahead of Queensland (at just under 17%), New South Wales (just over one in 10) and Victoria.

The biggest single segment in market capitalisation terms was from companies with A$11 million-100 million valuations, from those that chose to disclose their company’s market cap to us (just under 60%). Almost one if five respondents came from this cohort.

More than two thirds of people polled (67%) in the energy and mining sectors see nuclear energy as part of Australia’s energy mix in the next 25 years If you are in Australia, whereabouts are you?

The political divide deepens

Like it or loathe it, politics is central to the nuclear energy discussion in Australia, and the technical arguments about its viability are impossible to dissociate from a fevered debate that has pitted a renewables-focused Labor government (led by Anthony Albanese) against a Coalition Opposition (led by Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton) that sees nuclear as an essential component in the country’s future energy mix.

Our survey of the energy industry bears this out, with more than three quarters of all respondents (80%) regarding the Australian federal government’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia as mainly ideological, compared with less than a fith (15.8%) regarding it as an environmental objection.

And the same goes for the public as a whole. More than two-thirds (70.8%) of respondents saw the Australian general population’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia as mainly ideological, with only just over a fifth (21.9%) regarding it as an environmental objection.

Even ardent supporters of nuclear energy acknowledge the political motivation behind Peter Dutton’s plans to scrap the ban on nuclear.

“Energy policy is a major issue in Australia. The Liberal Party needed to do something strong about reducing emissions which could reduce energy prices in the long-term. They also needed a wedge issue –a clear policy that was different to the mass variable renewables policy of labour. After teasing it for a while, they formally launched a pro-nuclear policy at a press conference in June 2024,” said Jonathan Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy, an ASX-listed uranium mining company.

The political polarisation in Australia has fed speculation that the Opposition’s backing of nuclear energy is a mask for other policy goals, including boosting natural gas – seeing as there would be a gap between the retirement of coal andthe onset of nuclear in which the hydrocarbon could play a role of providing baseload power generation.

In this way, proposing nuclear power plants is viewed by some as cover for more coal and gas in the short-term, switching to uranium in the long-term.

In a scenario put forward by the government, the Coalition’s plans would result in an 18% gap of unmet energy by 2035. This would assume all coal plants would be extended beyond 2040.

Peter Dutton, the leader of the Australian Liberal Party Image: M Chan

Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister Image: Office of the PM of Japan

According to Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, support for nuclear power is likely to evaporate once Australians realise the Coalition’s policy would mean relying more on old coal plants and an increased risk of blackouts.1

Prime Minister Albanese’s government has passed legislation that targets a 43% cut in carbon emissions by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, by rapidly phasing out coal.

Well-known Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith has accused Labor politicians and conservation groups for being “ideologically opposed” to nuclear, a position he said many younger citizens did not share.

“It’s like a religion. To think that you could run a modern industrial economy with only solar and wind power is unbelievable,” he told the Financial Times 2

But if, as Smith claimed, the Labor policy is motivated by ideological zeal, it has as yet not translated into the kind of rapid scale up in renewables envisaged, nor yielded the investments required.

The Clean Energy Council reported commitments to renewable projects dropped to A$1.5 billion in 2023

from A$6.5 billion the year before, as investors struggled with slow planning approvals, rigorous environmental impact assessments and higher labour and equipment costs.3

Inner divisions

In reality, the political divide on nuclear energy is not as clean cut as the main protagonists like to make out. Neither is the roadmap for the Opposition to overturn the existing legislative ban on nuclear a straightforward process.

Power generated by nuclear sources is illegal according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, legislation introduced by John Howard’s Liberal government as part of a political bargain to obtain Green Party backing for the construction of a new research reactor at Lucas Heights.

Federal-level regulatory obstacles are complemented at state level by separate bans. Furthermore, in Queensland, any removal of the state ban requires a public referendum to be held.

1 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/04/nuclear-power-support-australia-election-chris-bowen

2 https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

3 https://www.ft.com/content/89c1ea46-29bc-4a7e-9943-a420b3f1512c

Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen Image: UK Govt

Jonathan Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy Image: WA Mining Club

One potential scenario for finding a political solution to enable nuclear to take off, would see Dutton winning a general election in 2025, though likely failing to take full control of the Senate, preventing him from repealing the regulatory ban. In that instance, as prime minister, Dutton could call a “double dissolution” election immediately –in effect asking the public to grant him a mandate to introduce nuclear energy.

Another option would be for Dutton as PM to start the preparatory work in support of building a nuclear energy capability, ahead of securing victory at the next election, where he could conceivably gain control of the Senate.

According to Fisher, the bill to lift the ban on nuclear energy could take a while to get through Parliament, but there are things that could be done almost immediately.

This preparatory work could include adding uranium to the government’s Critical Minerals list, which would make uranium projects qualify for a host of government assistance measures such as concessional funding as well as provide whole of government approvals coordination through the Critical Minerals Facilitation Office.

“Dutton could also put in place a special category of a section 482 visa, which is a skilled migrant visa, to help radiological and nuclear qualified people come into the industry. He could do everything to promote and continue AUKUS [a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US].

“He could continue with the siting of a national waste repository, one of the obligations under AUKUS, and he could continue with the build out of the skills base to include universities and vocational education centres.

“Finally, he could also champion the cause of overturning uranium mining bans in the states of WA and Queensland – if we are going to build a fleet of reactors, having a healthy domestic uranium industry makes sense for security of supply reasons.

“Whilst mining laws and regulations tend to be state based issues, so the Federal government could not overturn them per se; having a receptive Federal government would definitely help. For example, potential reform around the inclusion of uranium mining as a nuclear action under s22(1) of the EPBC Act may be considered.”

But all this would still require Dutton to overrule residual state-level opposition to his plans, much of which emanates from within the ranks of his own party.

Here, the example of the Queensland election in October 2024, which saw Liberal David Crisafulli win a narrow victory as state premier, may be instructive.

“It was a victory for the state level Liberal Party. But contrary to the Federal Liberal Party, they have set a strong climate pollution reduction target, and have specifically ruled out nuclear power stations, despite consistent pressure from the Federal party to be on board with the nuclear platform,” said Solaye Snider, a campaigner for Greenpeace.

In Snider’s view, the lesson in this for Dutton is that the path to power is not about chasing “nuclear fantasies” or blocking solar and wind projects, because in Queensland “the government there thought it was quite important to come out strongly against nuclear, and they ended up winning the election on that position,” said Snider.

Polling has also uncovered heterodox positions among environmentally-conscious Australian

Queensland’s new Liberal Premier David Crisafulli. Image: Creative Commons

voters on the nuclear issue. In some Teal seats (seats held by independent MPs who typically hold socially liberal or green leaning views) polling has found about 40% of voters were open to nuclear energy as an option, against 20% opposed. Internal Liberal Party polling is reportedly also showing that in some Teal seats there is majority support for nuclear.4

Regulatory hurdles

Even if the roadblocks to lifting the nuclear ban can be magicked away, analysts envisage challenges ahead in creating the regulatory undergirding for a viable civil nuclear energy sector.

The 25 bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements

Australia currently has in force covering 43 countries:

Republic of Korea (ROK)

Finland

Canada

Sweden

France

Philippines

Japan

Switzerland

Egypt

Mexico

New Zealand

United States (covering cooperation on Silex Technology)

Czech Republic

United States (covering supply to Taiwan)

Hungary

Argentina

People's Republic of China1 (cooperation)

People's Republic of China (transfer of nuclear material)

Russian Federation

United States of America

Euratom

United Arab Emirates

India

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Source: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

2 May 1979

9 February 1980

9 March 1981

22 May 1981

12 September 1981

11 May 1982

17 August 1982

27 July 1988

2 June 1989

17 July 1992

1 May 2000

24 May 2000

17 May 2002

17 May 2002

15 June 2002

12 January 2005

3 February 2007

3 February 2007

11 November 2010

22 December 2010

1 January 2012

14 April 2014

13 November 2015

15 June 2017

1 January 2021 (1000 AEDT)

First of all, the government would need to establish an independent regulatory body with statutory powers to regulate nuclear facilities and activities.

Enrichment of uranium fuel is illegal in most states –something which Canberra’s politicians will also have to navigate.

Time is another constraint. Clare Savage, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator, warned it could take eight to 10 years to develop a regulatory framework, taking in the licensing, safety, environmental, technical, commercial regulations and the legislation, rules, guidelines and the necessary consultation.5

However, nuclear advocates reject accusations Australia would struggle to have the necessary regulatory underpinning to enable a civil nuclear energy sector to take root.

According to Fisher, Australia already handles significant volumes of radioactive waste and has existing infrastructure in place.

For example, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) already serves as the primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, with responsibility for licensing nuclear reactors for research or production of radioactive material for industrial or medical use.

As Fisher says: “Australia is one of the countries best placed to go nuclear because of all the regulation that we’ve already got in place, and the fact that through our mining industry, we actually already handle a lot of radiation.

“Australia is also one of the only places in the world where the private sector has been successful in delivering a Low Level Waste (LLW) site, being the Sandy Ridge facility owned and operated by Tellus.

“This is a testament not only to private sector innovation in Australia, but also Australia’s laws and government approvals processes which facilitated such a facility to be approved and built. This gives Australia a significant advantage as it moves to build the next phase of its waste storage infrastructurea higher level waste facility,” says Fisher.

4 https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/energy-transition/news-analysis/4362126/government-ieefa-claim-duttons-nuclear-plan-starter

5 https://thenightly.com.au/politics/energy-regulator-claims-it-could-take-10-years-to-set-up-rules-for-nuclear-power-c-16509247

AUKUS – a Trojan horse for civil nuclear energy?

The AUKUS agreement to supply between three and five Virginia-class boats to Australia from 2032, before UK-designed and Australian-built SSN-AUKUS boats become available in the 2040s, has clear synergies with Australia’s putative nuclear power industry.

That Australia is already committed to investing A$4.6 billion in the UK’s nuclear reactor production line, in order to clear bottlenecks at the Rolls-Royce plant, suggests the laying down of tracks in the global nuclear supply chain. Australia plans to set up a joint venture with BAE Systems to build the SSNAukus submarines.

Once commissioned, Australia would be the only country operating nuclear submarines that does not have a civilian nuclear industry.

As Fisher noted, there is commercial sense in co-locating any future civilian waste with future AUKUS material to maximise economies of scale at the permanent disposal facility.6 This investment, he said, will create a future generation of Australian military and civil professionals skilled in the maintaining, supplying and developing of a nuclear fleet whose skills could then be utilised in the civil sector if nuclear energy was legalised.

Others have deemed wanting to limit nuclear technology to military purposes as arbitrary.

“It is strange to prohibit the civilian benefits of something, yet embrace the military … why would we then not use that technology when we have all the pieces in place to do so?” said Dr Edward Obbard, a nuclear materials engineer at the University of NSW.”7

Senior government figures have sought to downplay speculation that US President-elect Donald Trump might seek to modify AUKUS, amid concerns that Trump’s “America First” approach might jar with the pact’s ethos.

Regional analysts see this as unlikely.

“From Trump’s perspective, this is an ally stepping up to the plate, increasing defence spending, buying American technology. He’s unlikely to have anything against it, per se,” said Bill Hayton, Asia-Pacific associate fellow at Chatham House.

Hayton pointed out that alongside the submarines, there is another significant pillar around technology transfer and buying US-made missiles. And longerterm, Australia would prove useful in geopolitical terms for the US. “It’s somewhere the American submarines can stop and be serviced, and it diversifies them away from Pearl Harbour naval base.”

6 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions

7 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-nuclear-energy-debate-doesn-t-have-be-partisan

Shifting currents

Attitudes to nuclear energy defy easy categorisation, and are deployed and sometimes manipulated to serve existing, political positions.

While our survey of energy industry respondents overwhelmingly support its introduction, the view from the general public is more nuanced – even though, according to a series of opinion polls over the past year, it is moving in favour of nuclear.

That reflects a portion of the public has been persuaded by the argument that the rising cost of living is related to Labor’s renewables-only energy policy, and that nuclear could help take the sting out of that cost.

As with the political debate’s polarisation, division is the resounding theme among the wider population when it comes to lifting the nuclear ban.

According to the Lowy Institute, public opinion towards nuclear power in Australia has shifted over time. In a survey conducted this year, six in ten Australians (61%) said they ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ support Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, while a significant minority (37%) ‘somewhat’ or ‘strongly’ opposed it. Those who ‘strongly support’ nuclear power generation

Do you support or oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?

(27%) outnumber those who ‘strongly oppose’ it (17%).1

This presents a markedly different picture to the position in 2011, when the polling organisation found that more than six in ten Australians (62%) said they were either ‘strongly against’ (46%) or ‘somewhat against’ (16%) Australia building nuclear power plants as part of its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

As mentioned, that shift may reflect the impact of rising costs that have become associated with the advent of renewables, in pursuit of targeted net zero deadlines. This, together with the concerted political push on nuclear energy from the Australian Liberal Party throughout 2024, has frayed the former bipartisan consensus among Australians that nuclear was not necessary to ensure its future energy supplies.

Price sensitive consumers

Surging consumer energy prices appear to have made a dent in support for the government’s renewables strategy.

A growing number of households are struggling to pay their water, gas and electricity bills, with even people on higher incomes facing their power being cut off. A report issued in 2024 from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre found working families and households with mortgages in 2023 were increasingly impacted by payment difficulty for the essential services.2

This cost of living crisis has also shaped political arguments around the potential cost of net zero, relative to nuclear.

Source: Lowy Institute, 2024

The Liberal Party has released figures that question the government’s own calculations, commissioning consultancy Frontier Economics to assess and compare the cost of Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ plan with an alternative plan which includes nuclear energy.

1 https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/

2 https://jec.org.au/energy-and-water/higher-income-households-across-nsw-increasingly-struggling-to-stay-on-top-of-theirenergy-bills/

Australia Institute

Where Labor cited a A$122bn price tag for its plan to achieve a net-zero National Electricity Market by 2050, this research found Labor’s strategy will actually cost at least A$642bn. Using data based on the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) preferred Step Change scenario, the Liberal Party said this represents the true cost of utility-scale generation, storage, and transmission – a burden that will ultimately fall on taxpayers and households.3

This argument appears to have greater purchase on Australians’ public sentiment on renewables, compared to the government’s position.

What’s more, it tallies with the wider position across APAC.

“Typically you get the approval for nuclear, because it supports the local economy. But because of Fukushima, people are still a bit hesitant, unless there’s a lot of extra safety checks. As they’re still cleaning that plant up after more than a decade, there’s still some public opposition in Japan,” said Robert Liew, Director, Asia Pacific Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie.

That said, APAC populations like the lower power prices that flow from government-backed nuclear.

“In the past, in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, because the government subsidised nuclear power, people have enjoyed quite low power prices. But if you were to say, ‘OK, you have to pay the full bill’ that would make them less likely to support nuclear,” said Liew.

Robert Liew, Director, Wood MacKenzie’s Asia Pacific Renewables Research Image: Wood MacKenzie

Party lines

Public sentiment in Australia appears to broadly reflect existing party allegiances. One poll from Resolve said support for nuclear reflects existing voter outlooks. It found that while 60% of Coalition voters were in favour nuclear, for Labor voters, this stood at just 30%.4

More granular polling has encountered rising support among younger people in Australia for small modular reactors (SMRs).

A survey conducted for The Australian found 55% of all Australian newspaper voters supported the idea of SMRs as a replacement technology for coal-fired power, with support highest among 18 to 34-year-olds – the demographic most concerned about climate change – with 65% saying they would approve of such a proposal.5

Experts see this as evidence of the broader shift in public sentiment towards nuclear, reinforcing that sentiment is elastic, rather than static, on the issue.

“Opinion is very, very split,” said Max Whiteman, Sydney-based Research Associate at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie. “By demographic, younger people would once lean more towards wind and solar, and older people towards nuclear. That is no longer true.”

Opinion also varies according to profession and market sector and gender.

“The energy economists I speak to are all against nuclear. They see it as not being a good fit for the grid, and they see it as primarily a political play,” said Whiteman.

Another recent phenomenon has been evidence of support for nuclear in areas that might once have been considered deeply antagonistic to the technology.

Polling commissioned in July 2024 by the Minerals Council of Australia found a 21% net favourability for nuclear energy generation in Teal, Greens and independent seats – jarring with other polling that

suggested views fanned out according to party allegiances.

NSW Minerals Council research found that socially conscious voters are ready to embrace nuclear energy as an option. Likewise, the seat of Wentworth, 68% of voters support both lifting the ban on nuclear energy and the development of nuclear power in Australia.6

That support appears as intense in key Sydney federal seats. In January 2024, voters in three Sydney federal electorates indicated support for nuclear, according to polling released by the NSW Minerals Council.7

The results show a clear majority of voters in the seats of McMahon – Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s seat –Wentworth and Bennelong support lifting the ban on nuclear power, and also support the idea of nuclear technology being considered as part of Australia’s future energy mix. The polling revealed 67% of voters supported lifting Australia’s ban on nuclear power and 69% of voters supported the use of nuclear energy.8

3 https://www.liberal.org.au/2024/11/15/the-real-cost-of-labors-energy-plan-revealed

4 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13560151/Dutton-Albanese-voters-nuclear-power.html

5 https://carbon-pulse.com/263939/

6 https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/opinion/news/1463970/opinion-aussie-voters-ready-nuclear

7 https://nswmining.com.au/news/strong-support-for-nuclear-power-in-key-sydney-federal-seats/

8 https://nswmining.com.au/news/strong-support-for-nuclear-power-in-key-sydney-federal-seats/

Max Whiteman, Sydney-based Research Associate at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie Image: Wood MacKenzie

Gender split on whether “nuclear power would be good for Australia.”

Unsure (23)

Men (51)

Women (26)

Chart: Energy News Bulletin

Source: DemosAU/Australian Conservation Foundation

Polling also has revealed a divide between the genders on the nuclear question. According to an opinion poll of more than 6,000 Australians, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Federation and conducted by DemosAU, just 26% of women think nuclear would be good for Australia, compared to 51% of men. It said the gender divide is pronounced, regardless of age, with young men and young women just as divided on nuclear energy as those from older generations.9

Looking ahead, the tilt in public sentiment in favour of nuclear energy will be tested by its critics’ counterargument that nuclear is prohibitively expensive, and that it is no panacea for rising household bills.

According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), household electricity bills could rise by A$665 a year on average under the Opposition’s plans to introduce nuclear Australia’s energy mix.

For households that use more electricity, bills could rise more – by A$972/year on average for a fourperson household across nuclear scenarios and regions. IEEFA’s research also found that the cost

“People

in the bush will suffer because of the misinformation being plucked out of thin air to create division – whether it’s pushing expensive nuclear energy, or labeling windfarms industrial wastelands.”

Fortescue chairperson Andrew Forrest

of electricity generated from nuclear plants would likely be 1.5 to 3.8 times the current cost of electricity generation in eastern Australia.10

As yet, those numbers are not “real” in the way that household bills hit many Australians. The government and its allies in the environmental movement nonetheless believe that the public will, in time, take on board the notion that replacing coalfired generation does not come without costs, whichever technology is used.

Social license

Beyond the immediate issue of what form of electricity would keep household bills down, the issue of social license – essentially public approval and consent for nuclear, particularly at community level – now resonates strongly in Australia.

The public view on nuclear is wrapped up in a wider debate around renewables, including the community impact of wind turbines and transmission lines, which form part of the government’s energy transition plans.

Defenders of the government have sought to highlight misinformation around the issue of renewables and its community impact.

Andrew Forrest, the executive chairman of Fortescue, has warned, “People in the bush will suffer because of the misinformation being plucked out of thin air to create division – whether it’s pushing expensive nuclear energy, or labeling windfarms industrial wastelands.”11

Fortescue Chairman Andrew Forrest Image: UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

According to Friends of the Earth Adelaide, nuclear advocates’ citing of the UAE’s building of a largescale nuclear power generation capacity within 12 years as an example for Australia to follow, is not relevant — because that country, it is alleged, is a dictatorship.

“Planning and construction conditions in UAE are completely different from Australia. The UAE is a dictatorship, whereas Australia has rigorous planning regulations and laws protecting working conditions and the environment. Public opposition counts for little in the UAE, but social license matters in Australia,” FoE Adelaide informed the public enquiry on nuclear energy.12

Similarly, the Clean Energy Investor Group cautioned it is unlikely a nuclear industry in Australia would gain sufficient public support to secure social license for its operations.13

However, community engagement can swing both ways, noted Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy.

Fisher volunteers time to assist an advocacy group that undertakes community information events across Australia, focusing on the seven nuclear sites that have been proposed.

“It’s interesting to see the views of these communities, as they tend to be relatively energy literate, being current/former coal power stations locations,” said Fisher.

He said what has really resonated strongly in those areas is the job opportunities that may arise out of siting nuclear reactors there.

“There’s one example, in Collie in Western Australia, where the government said, ‘We’re going to shut down the three power station — but don’t worry, we’re going to put in a big battery. Yes, the roughly 1,000 jobs at those power stations are going to go down to a handful of jobs with the battery but we’ll make it a destination for Airbnb and mountain biking to compensate,’” said Fisher.

That argument doesn’t go down so well in these communities that want stable and well paying jobs, he added ruefully.

“On the other hand, when they are told that, if you’re a boilermaker in a coal station and you do a few months of training to get nuclear accredited, with the promise of a job forever, that story does resonate,” said Fisher.

In Fisher’s view, once communities see the benefits of the reactors in these sites – the new R&D facilities being built, the supermarkets, the healthcare — these communities are likely to end up bidding for these assets.

In this way, social license is evolving from a concept where it was all about protecting communities from harm, to a more proactive model in which consensus is built around the future economic impact on communities – whether negative or positive.

9 https://www.acf.org.au/gender-split-on-nuclear-energy

10 https://ieefa.org/articles/nuclear-australia-will-increase-household-power-bills-question-how-much#:~:text=“For%20 households%20with%20larger%20electricity,households%20it%20would%20be%20%241182

11 https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=5748b571-79fe-454a-9b7e-b6f542487715

12 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions

13 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions

Jonathan Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy Image: WA Mining Club

China leads the way

Across the region nuclear power plans are taking shape

Australia’s geographic location in the part of the world witnessing the most explosive growth in nuclear energy places additional pressure on the Canberra government to consider the future of the country’s long-standing nuclear ban.

The uptake of nuclear power is surging across Asia-Pacific (APAC), notes the World Nuclear Association (WNA). According to their data, the region has 145 operable nuclear reactors, another 45 under construction and firm plans to build an additional 50-60. About three-quarters of the world’s reactors under construction are in APAC region – and this is only the tip of the iceberg, with many more in the pipeline.1

This growth of nuclear energy in the region would at first sight appear to be at odds with the area’s recent history, notably the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, which prompted Japan and South Korea to press the pause button on future nuclear investments.

Despite this, more recently the regional trend has been to double down on nuclear. China – holder of the world’s third-largest reactor fleet and having 50% of the world’s reactors under construction –is at the forefront of this effort.

The WNA says China currently has 56 operable reactors with a total capacity of 54.3GW. A further 30 reactors, with a total capacity of 32.5GW, are under construction.

In August 2024, China’s State Council reaffirmed the country’s commitment to new nuclear with the approval of a further 11 reactors across five sites, at a cost of US$31bn.

These reactors will include the latest Chinese Generation III+ and Gen IV models, with attention focused on the Hualong One, a pressurised water nuclear reactor with enhanced safety systems to prevent meltdowns. Almost half the Chinese reactors under construction or in planning are Hualong One models.

Chinese Premier Xi Jinping

Image: Office of the Vice President of Brazil

This puts China on course to raise installed capacity to 80GW by 2028-29 and potentially 130GW by 2035, driven by the country’s need to boost energy security, reduce its dependence on coal for baseload power generation, and mitigate CO2 emissions – all aims shared by proponents of Australia’s nuclear energy ambitions.

The recent pace of construction in China has been frenetic. According to the WNA, between January 2014 and January 2024, 70 new reactors were connected to the grid globally – 37 of which were in China.

This strategy has been shaped by a strong government focus on nuclear, a sector identified as key to achieving China’s low-carbon energy transition following President Xi Jinping’s 2020 pledge to peak its carbon emissions before 2030 and gain carbon neutrality by 2060.

China’s focus on energy security reflects the country’s experience with frequent electricity shortages.

As Philip Andrews-Speed, senior research fellow, Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, notes, in 2003 the lights were going out over China.

“China then announced it was going to have an energy conservation strategy. But also, that it was going to build anything it can, and that kicked off a raft of nuclear build alongside renewables,” said Andrews-Speed.

Despite this rapacious growth, China’s nuclear power sector is still in its infancy, accounting for only about 5% of total domestic electricity production. That will shift over the next decade.

“The more optimistic projections see installed nuclear capacity rising to maybe 300GW by 2050, which would allow nuclear to provide up to 20% of electricity supply,” said Andrews-Speed.

China’s nuclear advance reflects a mix of two factors: an ability to quickly mobilise a skilled workforce and the efficiency of supply chains and lower input costs. Despite opacity over the economics of Chinese nuclear energy, its securing of economies of scale and its replication of designs, yielding shorter construction periods, suggest

China’s construction costs are significantly lower than those in Europe and the US.

According to consultancy Wood Mackenzie, Chinese nuclear reactor costs are roughly 50% less than a similar reactor in Europe, which it attributes in large part to supportive government policies that set out clear construction timelines.2

“There’s no great secret to what China is doing. It’s largely a matter of vast scale, state support and relatively simple, replicable construction,” said Andrews-Speed.

Underlying China’s nuclear strategy is a strong sense of autonomy. Nuclear power has a particular attraction now China has assumed greater control over the necessary technologies.

According to Bill Hayton, associate fellow at thinktank Chatham House’s Asia-Pacific program, China is driven by “autarky.”

1 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/asias-nuclear-energy-growth

2 https://www.woodmac.com/horizons/making-new-nuclear-power-viable-in-the-energy-transition/

Philip Andrews-Speed, senior research fellow, Oxford Institute of Energy Studies Image: Supplied

“The idea is to be autonomous, not reliant on external supplies for anything if they can avoid it. Nuclear is a way of squaring that circle,” Hayton said.

Yet China’s control of nuclear technology and construction does not negate its dependence on fuel imports. Its domestic uranium reserves are limited. The current strategy is that one-third of its uranium requirements will be sourced domestically, one-third through imports, and one-third from overseas mining controlled by Chinese entities, including operations in Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger and Uzbekistan.

China is also building two facilities for reprocessing spent fuel from nuclear power plants into uranium and plutonium in Gansu Province.

Safety first

Safety is another big challenge for China. The country’s National Nuclear Safety Administration is charged with overseeing a rapidly growing fleet of power stations, which raises questions as to whether it will be able to maintain the highest levels of

vigilance, requiring a greater willingness for officials to report faults upwards to senior management.

However, the Chinese leadership is sensitive on issues around nuclear safety, and the country’s regulator has obliged companies to work with local government to engage the public closely.

Like Australia’s states and territories, China’s provinces operate with a large degree of independence.

“China’s provinces have a lot of power to block things,” said Hayton. “The centre always finds it hard to keep an eye on what the provinces are doing.”

Safety concerns shape decision-making when it comes to building reactors. To date, China has built no inland plants out of concern that any leaks could damage freshwater supplies, on which China depends for irrigation and drinking water.

“In China, they’re very aware of public opinion when it comes to nuclear safety,” said Andrews-Speed.

Another distinctive Chinese trait is that it views nuclear energy primarily as baseload capacity, meaning it cannot be turned on and off in tandem with demand. This contrasts with the European Union, whose technology neutral principle means when renewable energy sources enter the system, nuclear has to get off the grid. In China, nuclear energy takes precedence, playing a role akin to that played by coalfired generation in the Australian setting.

The International Atomic Energy agency (IEA) has given plaudits to China’s nuclear energy program, noting it is helping other countries achieve their own energy goals by building quickly and safely, showing the world it is possible to build nuclear power plants at speed and with integrated costs.3

China’s gradual indigenisation of nuclear technology means its nuclear power development is relatively unaffected by deteriorating relations with the US. According to the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, Chinese research institutes and companies have the capacity to develop a variety of new technologies to export, including high-temperature gas-cooled, molten salt and fast neutron reactors, as well as floating plants and nuclear fusion.4

Nuclear exports form a key part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), in which Beijing plans to build and finance about 30 nuclear reactors in

Bill Hayton, associate fellow at thinktank Chatham House’s Asia-Pacific program Image: Bill Hayton

BRI countries in Asia, the Middle East and Africa over the next decade.5

This has implications for the wider world, as China’s growing share of the nuclear market will hand it more influence in shaping rules and norms in nuclear governance. Secondly, China’s nuclear exports will increase recipient countries’ reliance on China for decades, shifting the balance of power in the international system.

China nonetheless faces a steep learning curve in building overseas capacity. In 2019, it was targeting building 30 overseas reactors by 2030, potentially earning Chinese companies US$145bn. Yet up to now, its only operational overseas reactors are in Pakistan. Its efforts to deploy the Hualong One reactor design at the UK’s Bradwell nuclear site experienced delays.

China’s refusal to sign up to international treaties that set standards for sharing liability in the event of accidents presents another obstacle to its international nuclear ambitions. This suggests the country’s overseas nuclear build may progress more slowly than Beijing’s policymakers would like.

Nuclear power in Asia

Rest of Asia

Following the post-Fukushima moratorium, Japan has now approved an extension for existing nuclear reactors beyond 60 years, with a focus on getting suspended plants working again.

South Korea is targeting six new reactors as it makes stable power supply a top priority. The anti-nuclear policy pursued by the previous Moon Jae-in administration has been overturned, and public support for nuclear remains robust in light of its ability to deliver cheap, reliable electricity.

In India, more than 5GW of nuclear power is in active development, with 22GW targeted by 2031. The Philippines are actively pursuing nuclear power through the Philippine Energy Plan, anticipating 1.2GW of nuclear generated power by 2032, doubling to 2.4GW by 2040 and to 4.8GW by 2050.

Indonesia has an agreement with Russia to build an experimental, high-temperature gas reactor.

Undoubtedly interest is growing.

“Asian countries have been discussing nuclear issues much more in the last five years, in part because they’re worried about their neighbour building faster,” said Andrews-Speed.

South Korea is the main rival to China as an exporter of nuclear reactors, even entering European markets. Its nuclear technology has also been recommended as the favoured option for Australia by the Opposition, with Peter Dutton’s energy spokesman Ted O’Brien saying he expects the Nuclear Energy Coordinating Authority to consider nuclear technology from South Korea, noting the success of the UAE’s partnership with the South Koreans at the Al-Barakah facility.

Source: World Nuclear Association

3 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202408/1318939.shtml

In July 2024, South Korea became the preferred bidder on a $17 billion project in the Czech Republic, with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power set to sign a contract in early 2025 for two reactors in that country. This would be Korea’s first major overseas nuclear power project in 15 years, since a Korean consortium won a $20 billion contract in 2009 to build and operate four nuclear plants in the United Arab Emirates.6

4 https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/nuclear-power-in-china-its-role-in-national-energy-policy/

5 https://www.wilsoncenter.org/microsite/2/node/93798

6 https://www.ft.com/content/85a7e313-6089-4ba9-8f5b-f45adcbc5074

The cost of nuclear energy

A price worth paying?

With more than two fifth’s (43%) of our survey respondents identifying costs as a main barrier to nuclear energy in Australia – the third-biggest challenge after public opinion and the speed of construction – the economics of nuclear energy are clearly fundamental to the debate.

That reflects economic realities. Cost of living pressures have risen up the list of priorities for Australian citizens, which according to polling from the Lowy Institute, now prioritise reducing household energy bills over reducing carbon emissions.1

In the context of rising energy prices and high costof-living pressures in Australia, almost half of Australians (48%) polled by Lowy say ‘reducing household energy bills’ should be the main priority for the government’s energy policy, a sharp 16-point rise from a similar question in 2021.

The polarisation evident in the politics of Australian nuclear energy is equally present in the costing figures bandied around on both sides of the argument about the true cost of charting a nuclear future.

Energy policy priorities

Which one of the following goals do you personally think should be the main priority for the

Anti-nuclear critics have been quick to seize on perceived elevated costs associated with nuclear energy. For example, the Smart Energy Council, using data from CSIRO’s 2024 GenCost report and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Integrated System Plan,2 estimated the cost of building the seven nuclear reactors proposed by the Opposition at between A$116-$600 billion of taxpayers’ dollars, whilst only providing 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix in 2050.

The Federal government has also flagged surging costs as a key challenge. Also referencing CSIRO’s GenCost peport, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW) estimated replacing Australia’s coalfired power stations with SMRs will require more than 70 of these reactors, costing taxpayers A$387 billion. Under this modelling, SMRs have an estimated capital cost of A$18,167/kW (in 2030 dollars) compared with large-scale solar at A$1,058/ kW and onshore wind at A$1,989/kW.3

Opponents of nuclear are quick to draw unfavourable comparisons between renewables and nuclear costs. According to the GenCost report,

Annual change in capital costs

Source: GenCost 2023-24 report,

Source: Lowy Institute

Increase in typical household bill to recover cost of nuclear plants based on different countries’ experiences

Costs

while a 90% firmed renewables levelised cost of energy (LCOE) came out as A$100/MWh to A$143/MWh, the estimated electricity cost range for large‐scale nuclear under current capital costs and a continuous building program is A$155/MWh to A$252/MWh.4

In October 2024 the AEMO’s CEO Daniel Westerman told the AFR Energy and Climate Summit 2024 the lowest-cost form of new-build energy to both replace retiring coal power stations and meet growing demand for electricity is renewable energy, firmed with storage and backed up by gas.5

Environmental campaigners have echoed this message.

“We have to remember that the small modular reactor technology that the coalition is proposing doesn’t even exist yet” and they have not yet released costings for their own proposals, said Solaye Snider, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace.

2024, the IEEFA analysed the impact on household energy bills if nuclear power generation was introduced into Australia’s energy system. It said household electricity bills could rise by A$665/year on average under the Opposition’s plans and for households that use more electricity, bills could rise

All this, allege critics, translates into a hefty bill for the average consumer. As mentioned, in September Solaye Snider, Greenpeace campaigner Image: Supplied

1 https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/files/lowyinsitutepoll-2024.pdf

2 https://smartenergy.org.au/nuclear-fallout-116-600-billion-to-build-7-nuclear-reactors/#:~:text=Detailed%20analysis%20by%20 the%20Smart,Australia’s%20energy%20mix%20in%202050

3 https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/energy/2024-posts/Is-Nuclear-Power-the-solution-to-Australia-s-Energy-Transition-

4 https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-releases-2023-24-gencost-report

5 https://aemo.com.au/newsroom/speeches/aemo-ceo-speech-at-afr-energy-and-climate-summit-2024

VIC SEQ NSW SA

Czech Republic US Finland France US SMR UK

Source: IEEFA calculations

more – by A$972/year on average for a four-person household across nuclear scenarios and regions.6

The IEEFA warns that if Australia chooses to build plants on a similar level to three recent projects (Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France and Hinkley Point C in the UK), which have all faced construction challenges, delays and cost-blowouts, they would require a LCOE of between A$250/MWh and A$346/MWh to recover their costs.

The economic case

Such economic models are roundly disputed by Opposition figures, who argue that nuclear will cost a fraction of the government’s renewables investments.

According to Dr R J Hill, chair, South Australia and Northern Territory Division of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering, there are huge environmental and social costs in producing the metals needed in the green revolution, and very few economic recycling options.

On the other hand, he said, nuclear power has a much lower materials requirement than renewables, due largely to its higher energy density, which leads to an environmental footprint that is at least 20 times less than solar or wind.

SMR construction estimates keep rising

$20,000

Cost projections for small, modular reactors by year (2023 dollars per kW) 5,000

Source: IEEFA

Furthermore, the lifetimes of nuclear power reactors are up to three times higher than solar and wind, meaning that replacement costs and materials requirements are equivalently lower.7

Colin Boyce, the Liberal MP for Flynn, said there are ways of keeping costs down. The most costeffective plan for deployment at this stage would involve purchasing the same reactors to be installed at all the seven selected locations across Australia.

Construction at the UK’s Hinkley Point C plant Image: EDF

As the workforce involved in the installation of these reactors becomes more skilled, this would reduce the time and costs to install. This is based on the recent installation of four SMRs in South Korea, where the workforce halved their time from the first project to the fourth, he said.8

Nuclear opponents’ fixation on the cost blowouts at specific nuclear plants, such as the UK’s Hinkley Point C reactor, a 3.2GW dual EPR facility, has also come in for criticism.

Critics have alighted on significant cost escalation at that project. EDF, the French backer of Hinkley Point C, has said the plant would not be operational before 2039 and that the estimated cost had increased to between £31 billion-£35 billion (A$60 billionA$68 billion), up from £18 billion (A$35 billion) originally. That would equate to £41.6 billion£47 billion (A$80 billion-A$91 billion) in today’s money.9 In December 2023, China General Nuclear Power Corp halted funding for the plant.

Yet Cauldron’s Fisher said these cost blowouts are not a reflection of the typical reactor experience.

“Hinkley Point C is a massive project – a twin EPR, with 3.32GW of capacity, and the EPRs, a French design,

are significantly more complicated than alternative designs such as the AP 1000; resulting in a poor track record of constructability for the initial units. We would simply not build an EPR in Australia,” he said.

Meanwhile, the CSIRO GenCost modelling assumptions have also drawn attention from critics.

Zoe Hilton, at the Centre for Independent Studies, noted that while GenCost assumes an economic life of 30 years for nuclear plants – reflecting the typical investor’s repayment timescale –some nuclear reactors are already being licensed for 60 years, with regulators even considering 100-year licences.10

Hilton said that simply inputting more realistic values for three factors – economic life, capacity and uranium price – into the GenCost model shows that nuclear falls well within the renewables cost range. The Centre’s cost estimate for nuclear of A$130/MWh puts it on a par with firmed renewables, showing it is clearly competitive with wind and solar.

In any case, using the cost of energy as a metric becomes increasingly meaningless, if by the very fact of producing energy it reduces the market price,

6 https://ieefa.org/resources/nuclear-australia-would-increase-household-power-bills

7 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions

8 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/Submissions

9 https://www.ft.com/content/0608e36e-51cd-4ab7-bd18-62a536808536

10 https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/opinion/nuclear-vs-renewables-which-is-cheaper/

Jonathan Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy Image: WA Mining Club

Malcolm Grimston, senior research fellow at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London Image: Supplied

said Malcolm Grimston, senior research fellow at the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College, London.

“You need to look at not just your total cost of generating divided by your number of units, but also at the non-system costs, and that includes in Australia’s case the massive investments in the grid to get some of this renewable energy from where it’s produced to where it’s wanted, while still having a grid that can manage when the renewables aren’t coming at all,” he said.

All this complexity intensifies the higher the renewable penetration there is. For Australia, where renewables account for just under 40% of total electricity,11 moving to an 82% target by 2030 means such issues are even more exacerbated, said Grimston.

“If you get to those levels of penetration, you really do start hitting the difficulties with intermittency and variable production. Nuclear avoids this. So, while it is certainly more expensive to build per installed watt or kilowatt of capacity than renewables, and probably more expensive on an LCOE basis, it doesn’t carry with it these issues like land use. The amount of land needed for renewables

is very significant, and takes land out of other uses,” said Grimston.

And against hydrocarbons, nuclear (like renewables) has additional cost benefits.

“Global fossil fuel prices are in fairly high territory at the moment, but nuclear is famously very resistant to fuel price inflation,” said Grimston.

The message from nuclear supporters is clear. Even taking into account some countries’ recent experiences with nuclear energy cost blowouts, these same countries are still planning to increase and not retire nuclear energy capacity. And the lowcost examples provided by the likes of China and South Korea, suggests that these are the norm, rather than the experience at Hinkley Point C.

Consensus on costs will remain elusive. For critics and opponents, comparing like for like remains a challenge, and that will stymie attempts to gauge the true economic case for or against nuclear. But accusations of potential cost blowouts are unlikely to deter proponents from going in to bat for nuclear energy, and whose base economic model remains heavily oriented towards the long-term benefits.

11 https://cleanenergycouncil.org.au/news-resources/clean-energy-australia-2024-report#:~:text=Key%20statistics%20from%20 the%20Clean,of%20Australia’s%20total%20electricity%20supply

The Asian example

Those countries with the most expansive nuclear energy industries are also those that have witnessed the most assertive government support, notably in the financing of them.

Here, the likes of China are to the fore. Concessional funding from state-held banks has played a key role in the extensive financial support offered to the country’s nuclear industry, considered critical since the lifetime cost of running a nuclear power plan is about US$47 (A$72) per megawatt-hour (MWh), far cheaper than equivalent fossil fuels. However, at a 10% interest rate, the high end of the spectrum, the cost of nuclear power shoots up to almost US$100/MWh, more expensive than just about everything else.12

China’s use of similar designs, creating standardisation and economies of scale, has helped avert cost overruns. And this is not just manifest in China, the world’s fastest growing builder of nuclear reactors. South Korea’s construction cost for a nuclear power plant was estimated at US$3,571 (A$5,500) per kilowatt as of 2021, lower than US$7,931 (A$12,217) for France and US$5,833 (A$8,984) for the US.13

12 https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/commodities/2024/08/07/china-is-rapidly-building-nuclear-power-plants-as-therest-of-the-world-stalls/#:~:text=CorpVOD-,China%20Is%20Rapidly%20Building%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plants,Rest%20 of%20the%20World%20Stalls&text=(Bloomberg%20Markets)%20%2D%2D%20Within%20sight,reactor%20built%20for%20 commercial%20purposes.

13 https://www.ft.com/content/85a7e313-6089-4ba9-8f5b-f45adcbc5074

The costings from the Australian Liberal Party

On Friday 13 2024 the Peter Dutton-led Coalition finally released their the long-awaited costings for much-debated plan to build seven nuclear powers stations on the sites of seven former coal mines, if elected into office in 2025.

Here is the media release in full, which was released on behalf of Peter Dutton, shadow energy minister Ted O'Brien and National Party leader David Littleproud.

A Cheaper, Cleaner, and more Consistent Energy Plan for Australia

Australians face soaring energy costs, record levels of hardship, small business insolvencies, and growing uncertainty under Labor’s renewables-only energy plan.

The latest analysis from Frontier Economics reveals the Coalition’s balanced energy mix, including zeroemissions nuclear power, offers a cheaper, cleaner, and more consistent alternative, delivering massive savings for Australian families and businesses.

The Coalition’s energy plan will save Australians up to $263 billion compared to Labor’s renewables-only approach – a 44 per cent saving for taxpayers and businesses.

Cheaper Energy Costs

Labor’s energy plan comes at five times the cost Australians were initially promised. This excessive burden is already being felt by families and businesses, with energy bills rising by up to 52 per cent and more than 25,000 businesses forced to close their doors in part due to skyrocketing energy costs.

In contrast, the Coalition’s approach integrates zero-emissions nuclear energy alongside renewables and gas, delivering a total system cost significantly lower than Labor’s. This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient economy.

Anthony Albanese promised Australians a $275 cut to their power bills, but instead, families are paying up to $1,000 more under Labor’s costly and chaotic energy policies.

Labor’s ‘renewables-only’ experiment is costing Australians five times more than originally promised, driving energy prices higher and small businesses to the brink.

Over 25,000 small businesses have already closed, and families are entering hardship arrangements with their energy providers at the rate of 560 per week. Australians can’t afford Labor’s costly energy policies.

Cleaner Energy Mix

Nuclear energy is the key to achieving net-zero emissions sooner. Under the Coalition’s plan, Australia will meet net zero emissions by 2050 – one year earlier than Labor – while generating fewer emissions beyond 2050.

By avoiding Labor’s unnecessary overdevelopment on pristine landscapes and farmland, the Coalition ensures a more sustainable and responsible shift from coal to zero emissions nuclear.

Under Anthony Albanese, emissions are higher now than when the Coalition left office, proving that Labor’s chaotic renewables-only agenda isn’t just expensive, it’s ineffective.

Our plan responsibly integrates renewables, increasing large-scale solar and wind capacity while protecting regional communities from overdevelopment. At the same time, zero-emissions nuclear energy and gas provide the reliability that Labor’s plan fails to deliver.

Consistent Power Supply

Labor’s plan will see 90 per cent of Australia’s 24/7 baseload power forced out of the system by 2034, leaving the grid vulnerable to blackouts and instability.

In contrast, the Coalition’s approach ensures retiring coal plants are replaced with reliable, zero-emissions nuclear energy, supported by renewables, gas, and storage. By 2050, our plan will deliver up to 14 GW of nuclear energy, guaranteeing consistent and stable electricity for all Australians.

A Better Path for Australia

Frontier Economics’ analysis leaves no doubt: Australians will be better off under our plan. We will avoid hidden costs, reduce unnecessary infrastructure expenses, and lead to lower energy prices.

Labor’s chaotic plan burdens Australians with a system that costs five times more than they were promised. The Coalition’s plan ensures Australians are not overburdened by unnecessary expenses or reckless policies.

Location of the nuclear power stations proposed by the Australian Liberal Party

Nuclear energy is at the heart of our plan, providing the “always-on” power needed to back up renewables, stabilise the grid, and keep energy affordable. Advanced economies worldwide are expanding nuclear programs to meet their energy and emissions goals, and Australia must not be left behind.

INDONESIA

SOUTH SUMATRA MOLUCCAS

Location of the nuclear power stations proposed by the Australian Liberal Party

BANTEN

PAPUA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Only the Coalition’s energy plan delivers a cheaper, cleaner, and consistent future for Australian households and businesses while protecting our environment and securing the energy Australians rely on.

INDONESIA

EAST JAVA

SOUTH SUMATRA MOLUCCAS

BANTEN

EAST JAVA

PAPUA

EAST TIMOR SOLOMON ISLANDS

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

EAST TIMOR SOLOMON ISLANDS

Location of the nuclear power stations proposed by the Australian Liberal Party

VANUATU

VANUATU

Callide Power Station

Callide Power Station

Tarong Power Station

AUSTRALIA

Northern Power Station Muja Power Station

Northern Power Station Muja Power Station

500 km N

Map: Energy News Bulletin

Map: Energy News Bulletin

AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND

Tarong Power Station

Liddell Power Station

Liddell Power Station

Mount Piper Power Station

Mount Piper Power Station

Loy Yang Power Station

Loy Yang Power Station

NEW ZEALAND

© OpenStreetMap contributors

contributors

Does nuclear fit the bill?

Amid the sound and fury of the fierce partisan debate about Australia’s energy future, the core issue of the viability of the Australian Liberal Party’s proposals for seven nuclear reactors has largely been drowned out.

And yet, the efficacy of nuclear energy – just as much as its cost – is central to the country’s prospects of meeting its net zero targets.

Given the Australian government has a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to being 82% renewable electricity by 2030, the sense has grown that a renewables-only policy might not be enough.

Into this vacuum steps nuclear energy, a technology whose green credentials also feature prominently in our survey respondents’ view about the advantage of nuclear energy, with almost three quarters of all respondents (73.8%) citing environmental concerns as the main benefit/opportunity.

An impressive majority (86.3%) cited the reliability of nuclear energy as a power source as the main benefit/opportunity of nuclear energy in Australia.

And yet nuclear’s potential role poses a number of questions that still await answer.

Location of the nuclear power stations proposed by the Australian Liberal Party

For example, whether the power that would be provided by seven proposed reactors would be enough to replace coal fired power generation, (noting 11 of Australia’s 18 coal-fired power stations are due to be taken out of service by 2035)? Whether this can be achieved on an ambitious timeline of operationality by 2035-2037? Would the energy grid be capable of distributing nuclear-generated electricity in a seamless way, in coordination with both renewables and hydrocarbons? And, whether this can all be done safely and in an environmentally sensitive manner.

Critics have argued the Coalition’s proposed nuclear energy outputs would account for less than a third of the 22.3GW of coal currently in operation in Australia. Meanwhile, the likes of CSIRO and AEMO have warned the Coalition’s proposed timeline for large-scale nuclear are overambitious, saying these could only be realistically commissioned by 2040 at the earliest.

Such concerns typically get short shrift from nuclear proponents, who point out the country’s migration to renewables has been too slow, and that the intermittency issue associated with such energy technologies – that when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, they cannot provide enough power – means coal and gas fired power stations have in some cases had to be turned back on. QED.

The urgent need is to replace the baseload/ consistent power that coal and gas provides and which renewables typically do not. While the latter, were there more of them, could provide it if there was sufficient battery storage around to store the energy for use at other times, those storage concerns have not yet been resolved.

The carbon-avoiding nature of nuclear is backed up by global example. According to the World Nuclear Performance Report 2024, nuclear reactors helped avoid 2.1Bt of CO2 emissions in 2023 from equivalent coal generation. That is more than the annual emissions of almost every individual country, barring China, India and the USA.1

And as Australian Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton has noted, a 1.1GW AP-1000 reactor could cut

1 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-performance-report-2024

IAEA, IEA and World Nuclear Association nuclear capacity scenarios 2030 onwards

Nuclear capacity in GWe, 2030–50

IAEA low case

IAEA high case IEA steps IEA APS

Source: IAEA, IEA and World Nuclear Association

approximately 7Mt of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing 1.5 million cars from the road.2

What’s more, if Australia were to stick to its existing plans, avoiding nuclear, it would be going against the global grain. Of the world’s 20 largest economies, it is the only one not using nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is a large-scale, zero-carbon energy technology already widely used in 32 countries. Worldwide, 26 new-build nuclear power reactors were added to electricity grids in the past five years

(2020-2024). In October 2024, there were 63 nuclear power reactors under construction.3

In 2023, nuclear generation supplied more than 2600TWh, up 58TWh from 2022, generating 9% of the world’s electricity. 4

Time out

But if the world’s energy mix looks nuclear-tinged, that does not mean Australia is destined to copy that template?

Sceptics, such as Sydney-based Herbert Smith Freehills’ (HSF) projects, energy and infrastructure partner, David Ryan, notes the timing is inopportune for nuclear. Australia has to find a way to replace about 60% of its energy generation within 10 years.

“Nuclear is not going to do that, the timeframes blow that out the water. It has to be a firmed renewables mix, priority one,” said Ryan.”5

The AEMO’s Westerman told the Clean Energy Summit in July 2024 that even on the most optimistic outlook, nuclear power wouldn’t be ready in time for the exit of Australia’s coal-fired power stations.

Likewise, the Climate Change Authority’s Sector Pathways Review6 noted Australia’s lack of experience in building and managing nuclear power stations may reasonably lead to additional costs for a first-of-a-kind unit deployed in the country.

“The estimated lead time of 15 to 20 years before operation suggests this technology cannot make a

Liberal Party leader Peter Dutton Image: Australian Embassy Jakarta

David Ryan, projects, energy and infrastructure partner at Herbert Smith Freehill Image: HSF

timely contribution to replacing the generation capacity of retiring coal-fired power stations or helping Australia achieve its carbon budget targets to 2050,” the report said.

Campaigners also note Australia already has a head start in renewables – something not enjoyed by nuclear power.

Greenpeace campaigner Snider said during a climate crisis that has grown more urgent.

“Analysis shows that nuclear power in Australia would be too costly, too slow, dangerous and risky. It’s also not necessary. We will be starting nuclear from scratch when we’re already 40% of the way to powering our country with renewables from the wind and the sun,” she said.

“Also the concept that we need a baseload power system is actually a bit out of date in the current energy context,” said Snider.

The baseload case

Such arguments are strongly contested by advocates of nuclear. According to the Australian Nuclear Association, adding nuclear energy to the electricity grid with wind, solar and hydro would serve to increase the reliability and affordability of electrical energy.

Indeed, nuclear’s distinct appeal is its provision of baseload power, married to very low CO2 emissions.

“You need energy density, as opposed to a very sparse and energy-light network,” said Cauldron’s Fisher.

“The problem with Australia’s energy network is that it is massive, and you have a huge amount of transmission, and yet don’t have a lot of storage.”

In the future, it will be the availability of plentiful, well priced power that will be the main determinant of prosperity for a population. “We have a choice

2 https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2024/06/peter-duttons-full-statement-liberals-nuclear-energy-policy.html

3 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/ Submissions

4 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/world-nuclear-performance-report/preface-to-world-nuclear-performancereport-2024#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20the%20global%20nuclear,contributing%20an%20additional%2042%20TWh

5 https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/reports/energy-transition-chasing-zero/nuclear-power/will-australia-turn-to-nuclearpower

6 https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-09/2024SectorPathwaysReview.pdf

Daniel Westerman, CEO of Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) Image: AEMO Solaye Snider, Greenpeace campaigner Image: supplied

Jonathan Fisher, CEO of Cauldron Energy Image: WA Mining Club

between plentiful energy at our fingertips; or being constrained by a lack of reliable power meaning we miss out on significant new economic activities and industries,” Fisher said.

This speaks to a wider debate around renewables, and their suitability to provide stable electricity at a stable price.

“In September, in South Australia, on average between 7AM in the morning and 3.30PM in the afternoon, wholesale power prices were negative –

Production from mines globally

South Africa (est.)

Source: World Nuclear Association

because renewables, particularly solar, were flooding the system,” said Imperial’s Grimstone.

According to him, renewables also suffer from the mirror image problem of what happens on less windy days.

“What happens when the wind is blowing? In terms of structuring a market whereby renewables, in effect, cannibalise themselves so that when there’s not much renewable energy about, electricity, prices are high – and when there are a lot of renewables

Production in Tonnes U

about, electricity prices drop to zero, it’s hard to imagine how renewables could possibly be profitable,” said Grimston.

Nuclear, on the other hand, doesn’t face this issue of either having all the power coming at once, or then hardly any coming at all.

“It’s pretty much there, you can load follow with it (though it is best used for baseload), and it is dispatchable in ways that renewables aren’t, except for hydro,” Grimston said.

What then of the argument that Australia’s lack of indigenous nuclear capacity – barring the Lucas Heights research reactor started in 1958 –means it is starting on the back foot compared to competitors?

The example of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), whose government decided in 2008 to include nuclear in the grid, and which from scratch now has four large APR1400 power reactors operational, may be instructive.

The worldwide mean time from start of construction to grid connection was approximately 10 years for nuclear power reactors completed over the decade 2014-2023. The construction time for new power

SMRs to the rescue?

SMRs – reactors of up to 300MW capacity – have been proposed as an ideal for solution to Australia’s need to get nuclear up and running on a short timescale. That SMRs can quickly plug into a power grid makes them well suited to getting supply to market quickly, with the 2035 deadline fast approaching.

With a target construction time of three to five years, compared with the nameplate 10 years needed to build a large PWR, SMRs hit this sweet spot.

And yet, it is still early days for SMRs.

“Opponents are right to say you can’t kick the tyres on any SMRs yet,” said Grimston. “They haven’t reached commercial-demonstration stage yet, and there’s many a slip twixt design and construction.”

reactors completed in 2023 was between 7 years and 10.5 years.7

Australia, which unlike the UAE, has a deep well of expertise in nuclear engineering and regulation, may therefore be in a stronger position to scale up its nuclear reactor rollout than critics give it credit for.

“At the UAE’s Al-Barakah site, they had no regulator and no standards, whereas Australia has a very well-respected federal regulator in ARPANSA (the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency) and ASNO (the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office), which is the gold standard in this area,” said Fisher.

Australia also stands as one of the world’s top uranium producers. In 2022, it produced 4820t of U3O8 (4087 tU), making it the world’s fourth ranking producer, accounting for 8% of global uranium. Alongside the extensive supplies of uranium ore, Australia also has a large geologically stable landmass, making it well positioned to cater for long-term storage of nuclear waste.8

That domestic resource advantage plays into a wider argument proffered by nuclear energy advocates. Rather than ‘it can’t be done here’, the question is ‘why hasn’t it been done here?’.

Projected vs. Actual SMR Construction Schedules

Projected Schedule at or Near Start of Construction Actual or Currently Estimated Construction Schedule

Source: IEEFA

7 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower/ Submissions

8 https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/australia

Shidao Bay SMR

Russian Ship Borne SMR Unit 1

Russian Ship Borne SMR Unit 2 CAREM 25 (Argentina)

Jonathan Fisher, CEO, Cauldron Energy

How has politics affected Australia’s nuclear energy ambitions over the years?

Going back, we built a research reactor and then the foundations of a large reactor down the coast of New South Wales. But political things happened.

The coal lobby in Australia was very powerful at the time, and they thought cheap coal was good. So that reactor was never built. And that research reactor was then transitioned across from advanced materials testing into nuclear medicine.

The Liberal government of the day, led by John Howard, needed to get an act through parliament to build a new reactor (OPAL). But the Labor Party flat out refused to support building a new reactor and wanted to shut down our national nuclear competence. Fast forward to today – that reactor today saves literally thousands of lives a year.

Can’t renewables do what nuclear energy does?

I don’t have a problem with renewables, they absolutely have their place but I do have a concern with a very-high-penetration variable renewables grid. Everywhere else around the world that has tried a similar approach has failed.

What about the technology options? What should Australia be thinking about in terms of reactor types?

The Westinghouse AP-1000 is a versatile unit; following initial teething issues with construction (ie, Vogtle units) they are being rolled out in multiple jurisdictions, and there’s the South Korean APR1400 built in Barakah, UAE – as well as the little brother version the APR-1000 and the Chinese equivalents of those.

Would you put in a fleet of French-designed EPR Generation III+ reactors in Australia? No, they currently have a poor record of constructability, so not until you have a decent track record of five of them being built on time, and on budget.

Canada’s CANDU reactors are another option, which use natural uranium. However, Canada would need to

build out the new generation of those first, before we would be an export buyer. There’s no intention in Australia of being FOAK (the first of a kind) of anything.

We could build our own fuel assembly in the future without having to ship offshore.

How is the uranium market? Can Australia benefit from having its own resources?

The global market has bifurcated. China and Russia really on one side, the collective west on the other. Australia has western friendly uranium, which is in short supply. And so there’s billions of dollars available under the Sapporo 5 initiative to build up western friendly supply chains.

Now, if a deal is reached on Ukraine, that bifurcation might reduce and globally, prices might initially drop. The corollary to that is you could actually see utilities move to a restocking phase on the back of booming confidence; which would be very positive for pricing.

Their sentiment on that that drives volume and drives pricing. So actually, you’d think that even though there may be a hit to short-term spot pricing, if there’s a more normalisation with Russia, or a thawing of relations with Russia, the impact on utilities and how they’re willing to contract, will actually be a net positive in terms of the uranium market price and hence likely ASX uranium stocks.

Jonathan Fisher, CEO, Cauldron Energy Image: WA Mining Club

Malcolm Grimston, senior research fellow, Centre for Environment Policy, Imperial College London

Can Australia realistically build a nuclear power industry from its current position?

If you’re starting an industry from scratch in most countries, the routine bits such as the concrete pouring sometimes takes a little time to establish. Australia obviously has an industry which is already doing an awful lot of that. However, in terms of locking in higher end value (the specific ‘nuclear’ bits), which is what you want to domesticate, then that’s going to take a bit of time.

One of the big issues with Hinkley Point C in the UK overrunning on time and cost is that they underestimated how challenging it was to put a supply chain into a country that has not completed a nuclear construction project since the mid 1980s. That’s something the industry in Australia would need to demonstrate it was capable of dealing with.

How does the global nuclear industry view Australia as a potential new player?

It’s taken seriously though that doesn’t mean that people feel it’s certain to happen. Renewables in some ways get more difficult to manage the more you have, especially in countries with an isolated grid. So a country like Germany, which sits with 17 interconnectors to other countries, can manage renewables far more easily because it can dump its toxic excess on its weaker economic neighbours on windy days and then import when it needs to and just outbid most of its neighbours when it needs to.

With the likes of Japan and Australia, fairly quickly you are going to start hitting quite serious bottlenecks in the distribution network, and you haven’t got an easy way around that without massive overbuild – in the way a country that sits in the middle of many other grids with a lot of interconnection can do. That’s bound to have an effect on the attractiveness of renewables as the penetration grows.

Is Australia a good fit for nuclear?

In many ways nuclear looks sensible for Australia, but it’s going to take time. It’s clearly not going to make any difference to 2030 emission targets.

There’s an argument from some of the anti-nuclear movements that seems to imply climate change is an ‘event’ that either will or won’t happen on one day in 2030 or maybe 2035, and therefore anything we can do before then is wonderful, but anything that will only start delivering post 2030 or 2035 is useless, and we’re doomed forever.

There is an alternative argument which says this is going to be a long, hard slog and notes that all of the renewable capacity that’s going to be needed in 2050 has not yet been built, with the exception of some big hydro. Current solar and wind generation will have reached the end of its lifetime by then anyway.

So, the argument saying nuclear is no use because it might get us to 2050 and beyond but not to 2030 is specious. Renewables help in getting to 2030, which is well worth doing, but the long term is still pretty much a blank page. And nuclear plants last much longer.

There’s really no reason why a nuclear plant built today shouldn’t be operating for 100 years.

Once it’s actually up and running, you’ve got an asset that’s going to well outlast a solar farm or a wind farm. So given that you do need to take a very long horizon timescale when you are looking at climate change, then some of the arguments that are raised against nuclear seem to me to be pretty short sighted.

Hinkley Point nuclear power station Image: EDF

Max Whiteman, research associate, Wood Mackenzie

What are the main challenges facing Australia’s nuclear energy ambitions?

The disadvantages are significant. The uranium enrichment as well as the recycling of the fuel, these are huge challenges. Our only operating reactor is a light water reactor for medical research purposes, which isn’t capable of generating power.

We are not situated on a geological fault line, so those kind of safety risks are not a factor. And we do have quite a lot of uranium, so that’s quite favourable. But the issue is we’ve never built a nuclear reactor.

In the east coast power grid, which comprises South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania – about 82% of Australian electricity demand – we reached 40% variable renewable energy generation in October 2023.

So if we very optimistically started tomorrow removing the legal challenges to nuclear, and got a nuclear power plant online by 1 January, 2035, which is earliest we possibly could do it, that’s faster than basically anywhere in the world.

So even with what would be the fastest nuclear deal ever, it still wouldn’t fit well at a grid dispatch level with the existing solar and wind resources. The level of rooftop solar deployment, batteries and onshore wind deployment would just block nuclear out of the grid.

From our modelling, we found that about 7GW of nuclear would only make up about 10% of grid generation. Nuclear’s a really expensive choice for a really ill-fitting puzzle piece.

Can nuclear replace coal in providing baseload power generation capacity?

Coal-fired power plants basically operate at about 60% capacity factor on annual levels. Nuclear is obviously quite similar, but it operates at a higher capacity factor, about 80% in the best conditions.

At the moment, in the existing grid, these coal fired power plants are really struggling to flex around the

solar and wind loads, so nuclear will struggle even more.

People say the advantage of nuclear is that it’s always on. In fact, it’s not. We actually see a lot of issues with nuclear reactors and base load generators in general. I live in New South Wales. The temperature is about 34 C currently. Yet half of the existing coal fleet is offline for unplanned maintenance. So, this base load concept is quite outdated.

Sure, with nuclear we’ve got a high-capacity factor, and generally you will have a coal-fired power plant on but they’re just not as reliable as they used to be. And in fact, the sun and the wind are quite reliable in that sense where generally the sun does shine and the wind does blow, and when it doesn’t there is enough storage and gas power installed.

In our base case, we’re not really considering nuclear seriously as part of the generation mix, because we’re finding from power dispatch modelling that a combination of wind, solar energy storage, sub batteries and pumped hydro and then a decent gas fleet, which can come online within 15 minutes, is more than adequate and a much cheaper cost than nuclear power plants.

Max Whiteman, Sydney-based Research Associate at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie Image: Wood MacKenzie

Solaye Snider, Greenpeace campaigner

What is driving the Opposition coalition’s support for nuclear energy?

The reason that this is coming up now is because Australia has already committed to reaching net zero by 2050 and as part of that, the government is already working on transition plans for all sectors across the economy, including the electricity sector. So, it’s a live conversation – what should the energy mix look like as we try to transition off fossil fuels?

The other reason it’s coming up is because Australia is due for a Federal election, which could be called any time from now until May 2025. And so this proposition for nuclear from the coalition is part of their Federal election platform, and it’s an attempt for them to differentiate themselves from the Labor Party.

But we view it as how climate delay is the new form of climate denial, and that this is really a delaying tactic and a distraction, focusing the attention on nuclear and less attention on the fact that they want to keep fossil fuels like coal and gas burning.

What about the argument that nuclear reactors are forms of low-emission energy, just as much as traditional renewables?

The Coalition has explicitly stated that their plan to build up nuclear power would require curbing the

renewable transition and the momentum that’s already underway.

They would be replacing renewables with more gas, which is a highly polluting fossil fuel, and that would only increase emissions at a time when we’re trying to get off gas. It would also prolong Australia’s reliance on coal, and this is partly just because of the way the energy system works, and also the timeline for rolling out nuclear.

So, at the earliest, in the coalition’s own estimates, they could have nuclear power up and running in the late 2030s. However, other analysis says, more realistically, that wouldn’t be coming online until the 2040s.

Can renewables really challenge nuclear’s advantage in providing baseload generation?

The primary objective of the energy system is to provide enough energy at the cheapest cost for people. The Australian Energy Market Operator has said that a transition to 100% renewable grid is possible and it’s also necessary, and it’s the lowest cost in Australia given the abundance of wind and solar energy here.

And so the concept that we need a base load power system is actually a bit out of date in the current energy context. We don’t need power operating all the times. And so the very variability is a positive.

What is Greenpeace’s view on the safety argument? Large parts of the world have functioning nuclear industries that have had no incidents.

We’re really concerned about the safety and the risk of nuclear power, particularly around the storage of nuclear waste. It’s our view that there is no safe way to store nuclear waste, and we only have to look as far as the Pacific.

Folks in the Marshall Islands are still dealing with the persistence of radioactive pollution and the impacts that’s had on cancer rates and miscarriages that was from nuclear testing.

Solaye Snider, Greenpeace campaigner

Image: Supplied

Survey analysis

The politicians and the public may be divided on the issue, but the results of our survey on the issue of the use of nuclear energy in Australia are clear: more than two thirds of respondents (67%) see nuclear energy as part of Australia’s energy mix in the next 25 years.

Those survey respondents – overwhelmingly from the energy and mining industry and mostly representing C-suite level positions – express a clear preference for broadening Australia’s energy sources beyond the current mix of hydrocarbons, renewables and coal.

The numbers who would like to see nuclear energy as part of the country’s energy mix in the next 25 years represents almost four in five (78.5%) of our survey base.

This support for nuclear is more intense than seen in the wider general population. Most soundings of public opinion in recent months have encountered rising support for using nuclear in the mix, including majorities in favour. However, these tend to show a more evenly balanced picture of sentiment than our survey.

The Lowy Institute conducted a poll in 2024 and found 61% support Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy; for those opposing, this stood at 37%.1

That still puts public sentiment close to energy industry views, as expressed in our survey.

Would you like to see nuclear energy as a part of Australia’s future energy mix in the next 25 years?

Yet other polling paints a more nuanced picture of popular opinion, with some scope for views to shift. A survey conducted in June 2024 by Resolve Political Monitor found just 41% support the use of atomic energy, with 37% opposed – leaving 22% undecided.2

Pinpointing the main reason why our survey respondents are so keen on nuclear, one message resounds strongly: they see it as the best means of providing stable baseload power, fulfilling a role that traditionally has been played by coal-fired power generation in Australia.

Almost nine in 10 respondents (86.3%) cited the reliability of nuclear energy as a power source as the main benefit/opportunity of nuclear energy in Australia.

That reflects an industry view that renewables’ intermittency issues – with supply contingent on favourable wind and sunshine conditions – necessitates alternative means of ensuring backstop supply.

Even so, many in the industry still see nuclear’s low emissions as its prime attraction. Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, produces about the same amount of CO2-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.3

Do you support or oppose Australia using nuclear power to generate electricity, alongside other sources of energy?

Source: Lowy

That indicates why almost three quarters (73.8%) of all respondents cited environmental concerns as the main benefit/opportunity of nuclear energy in Australia.

What in your opinion are the main benefits or opportunities of nuclear energy in Australia?

When it comes to the politics, it’s clear the energy industry in Australia sees ideology as the driver to the government’s position on nuclear. This appears to trump economic considerations.

An overwhelming four fifths (80%) of all respondents think the Australian federal government’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly ideological, with just over a sixth (15.8%) sayings it’s an economic objection.

Do you think the Australian general population’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly?

(51)

Respondents chose as many answers as applied

Source: ENB Nuclear energy attitudinal survey 2024

Do you think the Australian federal government’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly?

(9)

(37)

ENB Nuclear energy attitudinal survey 2024

(187)

(17) Source: ENB Nuclear energy attitudinal survey 2024

(165)

Would you like to see a referendum/ plebiscite on the introduction of nuclear energy?

Source: ENB Nuclear energy attitudinal survey 2024

1 https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/australia-using-nuclear-power-to-generate-energy/

2 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13560151/Dutton-Albanese-voters-nuclear-power.html

3 https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20plants%20 produce%20no,electricity%20when%20compared%20with%20solar

And that view extends to how our respondents view the general public’s sentiment on nuclear energy.

Of our respondents, just under three quarters (70.8%) think the Australian general population’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly ideological, with only just over a fifth (21.9%) saying it’s an environmental objection.

That also influences opinions on how our respondents see the task of building public support for nuclear, with hesitance evident over the question of a plebiscite. On the issue of whether a referendum on the use of nuclear energy would be a good move, respondents were split with roughly a third voting yes and a third voting no.

Public attitudes are viewed as a significant potential barrier to progress. Almost three quarters of all respondents cited public opinion as the main barriers to/challenges with nuclear energy in Australia.

That sense may reflect the fact that at state level, leading politicians have taken positions on nuclear that may reflect an ingrained “not in my backyard” view among voters. While many Australians may countenance nuclear as a serious long-term proposition for keeping the lights on in the abstract, that doesn’t mean they are as keen to have nuclear waste located close to their areas.

Politics has captured such nuances. The Queensland premier David Crisafulli, representing the Liberal National Party, secured a victory in his home state’s election in October 2024, having made it clear that nuclear – in defiance of the party’s position at federal level – would not be part of his plans.

Pigeonholing public views on nuclear is not straightforward, however, with evidence that the fiscally-conservative but environmentally conscious so-called Teal voters do appear to see a role for nuclear energy.4

In efficacy terms, it is abundantly clear our survey respondents are convinced of nuclear’s potential, and that the technology is a good fit for the country. A very small proportion (6.8%) of all respondents cited inefficiency of nuclear power to meet Australian demands as the main barrier to/challenge with nuclear energy in Australia.

When it comes to the practical hurdles confronting nuclear energy in Australia, cost and speed of construction are seen as the key issues. Around half of all respondents cited cost or speed of construction as the main barrier to/challenge with nuclear energy in Australia.

With recent examples in the UK and Czechia revealing the potential for substantial project and cost overruns, this view may reflect a wider perception that starting an industry virtually from scratch will inevitably involve hiccups.

None of this takes away from the robust sentiment from our survey respondents that nuclear must be considered in the future energy mix. Shades of opinion vary across the country, reflecting Australia’s heterodox demographic and geographic make-up. But when it comes to the industry that is most affected by the development of a nuclear power sector, and that would play a core role in helping its rollout, the message is as clear as light; it is a viable option, one deserving of serious consideration.

What we asked?

1. Do you see nuclear energy as a part of Australia’s future energy mix in the next 25 years?

2. Would you like to see nuclear energy as a part of Australia’s future energy mix in the next 25 years?

3. What in your opinion are the main barriers to/ challenges with nuclear energy in Australia?

4. What in your opinion are the main benefits/ opportunities of nuclear energy in Australia?

5. Would you like to see a referendum/plebiscite on the introduction of nuclear energy?

6. Do you think the Australian federal government’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly idelogical or economic?

7. Do you think the Australian general population’s opposition to nuclear power in Australia is mainly idelogical or economic?

8. Do you think the ban on the new uranium mining should be lifted?

4 https://www.energynewsbulletin.net/energy-transition/news-analysis/4362126/government-ieefa-claim-duttons-nuclear-plan-starter

FUTUREFLEE TS

How has the drilling sector embraced alternative energy?

Which are the most exciting projects when it comes to digitalisation?

This comprehensive report paints a picture of the equipment landscape and includes detailed profiles of mines that are employing these fleets.

Exclusive access: Analyze the industry’s most advanced fleets used globally.

Global trends: Stay ahead of the curve with insights on regional and equipment--specific developments.

Tackle climate challenges: Discover how electrification is conquering even the toughest machines like drill rigs.

How have advances in battery technology allowed heavy vehicles to evolve?

Future of Energy Report: Nuclear power in Australia

The possibility of nuclear power becoming a reality in Australia ramped up a few notches in June when the leader of the Australian Coalition Peter Dutton declared that – if elected – he would build seven nuclear reactors on the sites of seven former coal mines.

This has lit the blue touchpaper for an intense debate within the energy industry and beyond, about whether nuclear is the right fit for the country, and whether it is achievable and affordable.

With this in mind, in November 2024, ENB engaged with energy and resources industry professionals to assess their views on nuclear energy and understand the industry’s wider concerns. We also engaged with leading nuclear experts from across the world to gauge Australia’s potential.

We also examined the political landscape of Australia in 2024, looked at the wider APAC region and their embrace of nuclear power and also considered the financial cost and practical viability of a nuclear-powered Australia.

In the same collection: