For the past century, Victoria's Latrobe Valley has drawn its identity from being the home of the state's coal-fired electricity sector.

But it's now being touted as the potential home for an Australian nuclear industry by the federal Coalition.

Nuclear power generation has been put forward as a zero-emissions solution, despite being banned by the Coalition in 1998.  

But the suggestion by opposition energy spokesperson Ted O'Brien for former coal sites in the Latrobe Valley and at Anglesea on the Surf Coast has drawn criticism from community representatives and energy experts.

The community group Voices of the Valley was born a decade ago out of the Hazelwood Mine fire, which burnt for 45 days, shrouding Morwell and its surrounding towns in smoke.

For the group's president Wendy Farmer, it was the beginning of a new chapter advocating for the health of her community.

She said the community would not support nuclear power.

"There would need to be really strong community support for nuclear power and there isn't."

Shift to renewables

Ms Farmer told the ABC the delay in Victoria's transition to renewable energy was contributing to scepticism about future power generation and the phase-out of coal-fired power stations.

"The issue we have is federal and state arguing against each other and we're not pushing fast enough to get the renewables into the grid," she said.

"Look at offshore wind, how long we're waiting … people say, 'We're having a shortage of power because renewables aren't doing their job.'

The Victorian government has announced plans to legislate a renewable energy target of 95 per cent by 2035.

Emotion around nuclear

After the Hazelwood Mine fire there were two inquiries, health studies, the beginning of many community groups and the declaration of the Latrobe Health Innovation Zone, which stood to protect the Latrobe Valley from polluting industries.

Since then, a lead smelter has been proposed and now, the Coalition says former coal-mine sites with existing power infrastructure could be ideal hosts for nuclear power stations.

Member for Gippsland Darren Chester told the ABC he understood the emotion surrounding nuclear, but urged residents to look at nuclear-power generation on a global scale and how it was often fuelled by uranium mined in Australia.

"It's a conversation we need to have as calmly and as rationally as we can to make sure we're making the best decision about future generations of Australians having access to reliable and affordable energy."

The Coalition will develop a policy ahead of the next election outlining its proposed "energy mix", which will include nuclear power generation with zero emissions.

Private companies 'not building nuclear'

But while nuclear power may be more reliable than renewable energy dependent on wind and the sun, Bruce Mountain from the Victorian Energy Policy Centre said it was hard to ascertain exactly how much it would cost to build nuclear power stations in Australia. 

"Doing a proper likewise comparison [of cost] is in fact incredibly difficult," Mr Mountain said.

"Per kilowatt of power produced, wind and solar are much, much cheaper, but they're variable, so if you have demand that can flex variably with the availability of wind and solar then that's your cheapest option."

The federal government says replacing coal with nuclear would cost $387 billion.

Despite many companies, including superannuation funds, jumping on board to invest in offshore wind farms, Mr Mountain said around the world the opposite was true for nuclear power generation.

"Private companies are not building nuclear.

"The operating risks and per unit of power production … it costs a lot more than the alternative."