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

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

While atomic fission does no cause harmful greenhouse gas emissions, opponents of nuclear energy point to other dangers associated with storing the radioactive waste and the potential for spent fuel from nuclear reactors to be used to make nuclear weapons. Past accidents have undermined public confidence, too. An explosion at a plant near Chernobyl in the former USSR in 1986 saw people die and radioactive contamination blow over Western Europe. A tsunami following an earthquake triggered a meltdown in a coastal nuclear plant in Fukushima in 2011.

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

Why would it cost so much?

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

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

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

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

Why is Peter Dutton pushing for it?

Loading

For more than a decade, the Coalition has questioned the economics of renewable energy, and there is broad partyroom support across for a less-ambitious renewables rollout. Dutton says including nuclear in the energy mix will reduce the need for so many new renewable energy generators and transmission lines to be built. There is also a core base of rusted-on fossil fuel backers in the dominant right wing of the Liberal and National parties, which support the greater use of gas and coal on the road to net zero.

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

What do Australians think about it?

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

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