The Coalition’s nuclear folly

Australian matters

Nuclear energy is too slow and too expensive to be a climate solution in Australia – but it would prolong our use of coal and divert funds from renewables. This is the reason Mr Dutton and the Coalition party, who are closely linked to Australia’s fossil fuel industry, all of a sudden have come up with the idea that nuclear energy would be a such a brilliant energy solution.

“The Coalition’s promotion of nuclear generation seems to have gained traction, but it’s outrageously incompetent – or deceptive,” according to operations researcher Andrew Gunner.

The Coalition has picked a 56-cent peak rate from a single energy plan to claim that Australians pay four times more for electricity than residents of nuclear-powered Ontario. This is “cherry-picking”, selecting extreme data that supports an argument while ignoring equally valid data that supports the opposite. The Coalition conveniently ignores the Australian plans that, at night, charge only 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour before GST.

“Their cherry-picking is outrageous, a recipe for disaster when used to guide the nation on critical decisions,” Andrew Gunner told Centre for Climate Safety.

“The Coalition claim that nuclear power in Ontario provides electricity at a cost four times cheaper than in Australia. This comparison is fundamentally flawed. For example, it overlooks Ontario Hydro, the entity that built the nuclear generators, going bankrupt and leaving Ontario residents to pay a “debt retirement charge” on their electricity bills from 2002 to 2016.

Worse, their argument relies on an unrealistically high figure of 56 cents per kilowatt-hour for Australian electricity costs (*). If the Coalition cannot accurately represent Australian electricity prices, how can they be trusted to make sound decisions on the complex and costly issue of nuclear power? It is stunning how they have got away with this.”

Mr Dutton’s website reveal how the Coalition deceptively crafted their nuclear scheme talking-point about Australians paying more for electricity than Ontarians.

These quotes should shatter their credibility – which is key now they are about to release more details on their nuclear scheme.

They have deceptively argued that Australia should adopt their nuclear scheme by:

  • cherry-picking a high Australian cost: a peak-hours cost from an unnamed electricity plan used by a few Australians,
  • cherry-picking a low Ontario cost: an average of several usage costs,
  • ignoring other critical cost factors,
  • comparing this highest Australian cost with their average Ontario cost,
  • falsely claiming that Australians pay more than Ontarians for electricity, and
  • claiming that Australians should go nuclear to pay less for electricity and
  • using this as a talking point to support their nuclear scheme.

Here are the two quotes:

“Ontario … households pay around about 14 cents a kilowatt hour. There are parts in Australia that will be paying up to 56 cents a kilowatt-hour from July 1 this year.”
~ Mr O’Brien, Shadow Minister for Energy

Interview transcript on Dutton’s website – 19 June 2024

“We could be like Ontario, where … they’re paying about a quarter of the price for electricity that we are here in Australia.”
~ Mr Dutton, Coalition leader

Interview transcript on Dutton’s website – 24 July 2024

Further details

This comparison of electricity prices reveals how they have created false talking points to support their nuclear scheme. People should not trust their coming advocacy for this scheme.

Research by Climate Council found that half of men compared to just a
quarter of women strongly support introducing nuclear power in Australia

→ The Guardian – 24 February 2025:
Coalition nuclear plan hides a 2bn tonne ‘carbon bomb’ that puts net zero by 2050 out of reach, new analysis shows
“Climate Change Authority chair Matt Kean says Dutton’s energy proposal is equivalent to adding ‘two Beetaloo basins’ worth of emissions to atmosphere.”

In the same week opposition leader Peter Dutton was slammed by the press for skipping out on his electorate as Cyclone Alfred approached, a former senior US climate official has said the Coalition’s nuclear policy will be the most expensive energy option for Australians. Speaking at Climate Action Week Sydney, Dr Jonathan Pershing noted that the numbers just don’t stack up, reiterating that “very, very few” other countries are building nuclear plants in 2025.

Nuclear and security

The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group has issued a strong statement highlighting the dangerous vulnerabilities nuclear power plants would introduce, and warning how nuclear power plants may become war targets and adversely affect Australia’s security. They also make Australia’s defence more complex and expensive because they will require anti-missile systems to be deployed for each power station.

Media coverage:

SBS: Nuclear reactors could become targets of war, defence experts warn

THE GUARDIAN: Australia news live: former ADF chief warns nuclear power plants could be war targets

THE AGE / SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: As Wong and Dutton exchange fire, the Chinese flotilla laps Australia

CANBERRA TIMES: Experts fear nuclear plants would become war targets

WEST AUSTRALIAN: Experts fear nuclear plants would become war targets

AAP: Experts fear nuclear plants would become war targets

Experts fear nuclear plants would become war targets
Experts fear nuclear plants would become war targets

MEDIA RELEASE

Former security leaders urge scrapping of nuclear power plan that weakens Australia’s security and increases climate risks

Australia should not proceed with the proposed plan for nuclear power stations due to the climate and security consequences they pose to the nation, according to a group of former Australian security leaders.

The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group (ASLCG) say that the nuclear plan creates high-value, vulnerable targets for missile warfare and sabotage, as well as perpetuating reliance on coal-fired power that would add two billion tonnes of emissions, derailing our climate targets.

“Every nuclear power facility is a potential dirty bomb because rupture of containment facilities can cause devastating damage,” says the former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie (Retd). “Modern warfare is increasingly focused on missiles and uncrewed aerial systems, and with the proposed power stations all located within a 100 kilometres of the coast, they are a clear and accessible target”. 

“In the Ukraine-Russia war, both sides have given strategic priority to targeting their opponents’ energy systems, and Australia would be no different”, says Cheryl Durrant, the former Director of Preparedness & Mobilisation, Australian Department of Defence.  “So these nuclear facilities would necessitate expensive and complex missile defence systems as well as allocated cyber and counter-intelligence resources, making our security challenge more complex and expensive”.

The power stations are a dual target, due to their role in energy supply but also because of the catastrophic consequences of breach of the facilities. They would dramatically increase the number of critical infrastructure targets that would need to be defended in the event of conflict. 

Former Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Admiral Chris Barrie (Rrtd) says: “The proposed nuclear facilities add a high level of complexity to Australia’s defense strategy, raising a fundamental strategic dilemma: where do limited national defence resources go? Do we prioritize the protection of cities and population centres and military bases, or do we divert vital resources to defending seven nuclear power stations scattered across Australia?”

Ms Durrant says: “Australia currently lacks a comprehensive, layered missile defence system capable of safeguarding both major urban centres and high-value, strategic infrastructure. The introduction of multiple nuclear facilities would necessitate a significant and costly expansion of Australia’s defensive capabilities—something our current military posture is not equipped to handle.”

In reports to the government and the community, ASLCG has shown that climate disruption now presents the greatest, and potentially existential, threat to society and human security in Australia and around the world. The Asia–Pacific, the highest risk region in the world, faces devastating climate impacts, and Australia as a hot and dry continent is particularly vulnerable. Delaying the path to emissions reduction in Australia will exacerbate these risks, making it crucial to fast-track decarbonisation.

Policymakers must ensure that Australia’s energy policy does not inadvertently expose Australia to unacceptable climate and security risks in an increasingly volatile security landscape.

Misleading the Australian public

The Coalition needs to explain why Ontario is a good reason for Australia going nuclear. The 56 cents is only one part of the deception. The sin is they are misleading the Australian public, and, if they win, tying themselves into pushing down this path.

The Coalition’s scheme would:

  • need a massive nuclear building project,
  • be more than twice the size of the Hinkley Point C project in the UK with its enormous delays and cost blowouts,
  • only supply 13% of the demand in 2050, making it a minor part of any energy policy,
  • start nuclear generation too late to cover necessary coal plant retirements, and
  • require a massive expansion of gas generation.

The nuclear scheme could only be a minor part of the needed electricity generation, 13 per cent in 2050, and does not address how we would meet 87 per cent of the 2050 demand. Unfortunately, this partial scheme could frighten energy investors and undermine AEMO’s comprehensive plans to supply demand.

This nuclear scheme will increase the cost of living and make Australian industry less competitive because it:

  • relies on the two most expensive forms of generation, nuclear and gas,
  • needs massive subsidies to keep unreliable coal plants running, and
  • cuts back on the cheapest electricity, renewables.

→ Read more

"As we looked more into it, we found #nuclear was a Trojan horse for the coal industry, wanting to keep coal going, and it denied transition to an industry that allowed lower bills," said Hon Matt Kean #auspol #insiders www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05…

[image or embed]

— Scott Hamilton (@sdhamiltonvic.bsky.social) November 30, 2024 at 11:13 AM

* What is the electricity price in Australia?
A Renew Economy article gives the following prices for eastern capitals:

  • Sydney 12.1 cents: 56 is an overestimation by a factor of 56/12.1 = 4.6
  • Brisbane 13.8 cents: overestimation factor = 56/13.8 = 4.1
  • Adelaide 14.2 cents: overestimation factor = 3.9
  • Melbourne 11.6 cents: overestimation factor = 4.8

They did not give country area prices.

An average of these prices = 12.9 cents/kWh

This suggests a more realistic value would be 12.6 cents/kWh and the overestimation would in that case be = 56/12.9 = 4.3

The possible origin of the Coalition’s 56 cents price
The article says it may have found one SA electricity plan that offers (1) 56 cents at peak hours, (2) far lower costs at other times, and (3) pays well for electricity exported to the grid. This could suit a person with batteries and solar panels. It seems that the Coalition has cherry-picked an extremely high value and that this plan, despite the 56-cent price, could give low electricity costs to some households.

Powershop’s consumer price
I looked at my own electricity bill with Powershop. It is 26.48 cents/kWh. This becomes 24.1 cents before GST. This suggests an overestimation factor of 2.3.

(I have not searched for the lowest price for my electricity.)

Tango offered a good plan for me: 12.24 cents (11.1 before GST) for the first 15 kWh/day then 24.76 cents (22.5 before GST). The 11.1 is close to the article price for Melbourne.

In summary
The Coalition’s 56 cents is two or even four times higher than a reasonable estimate.

I am amazed that Dutton has got away with this. I do not understand why Albanese has not asked Dutton to either publicly withdraw this 56-cent claim or resign from Parliament. Dutton should be able to understand Australian electricity bills.”
~ Andrew Gunner

Andrew Gunner is an Australian professional with a diverse background in applied mathematics. He runs the website Feedback Reigns

→ Canberra Times – 12 February 2025:
Doctors fear health fallout from nuclear energy plans
“Doctors have warned of no “safe” level of radiation from a proposed network of nuclear reactors as battlelines are drawn for the federal election.”

Kelly O’Shanassy, CEO, ACF, wrote: 

Just 26% of women think nuclear would be good for Australia, far less than men.*

This is about more than energy policy; it’s about the legacy we want to leave for our kids: one built on sun and wind or a future burdened by radioactive risk and nuclear waste for thousands of years to come. For Australian women the choice is clear.  

Help protect Australia from the wrong choice. Send a prewritten message to Jane Hume, LNP Senator for Victoria, about the gender divide on nuclear. Right now, women inside the Coalition need to shift the conversation to what Australians truly want – effective climate action and continued growth of renewables.

This new DemosAU national polling highlights women’s lack of support for nuclear.* Having failed to convince women and with half the voting base off-side, the Coalition must take notice and change its approach.

Regardless of gender, there’s strong and broad agreement among Australians on three key points: 

  1. Nuclear is too risky. 65% of women say the safety of nuclear plants are a concern – and more than half of men – 55% – agree. Only 18% of women and 38% of men report they would be comfortable living near a nuclear reactor. 
  2. We know nuclear would cost more than solar and wind. 47% of Australians, regardless of gender, agree that renewable energy would deliver cheaper energy than nuclear – this is a much higher percentage than those who disagree (31% for men and 20% for women). 
  3. Nuclear is unrealistic. Just 18% of women and 24% of men think it’s likely a nuclear plant will be built in Australia in the next few decades – this is a clear indication that many Australian voters think nuclear is a fantasy that is unlikely to ever happen, but that risks delaying our adoption of proven renewable energy.

Don’t risk our future being flushed down a dangerous pipe dream. Write to our decision-makers today.

Your message will be copied to the office of Monique Ryan, an independent voice for women in the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy. With one click, your support of a safe, clean energy future will echo from the Senate to the House and into future generations. 

Send prewritten email

Renewable energy is already working for Australia. Right now, renewables provide nearly 40% of our electricity, and that number has doubled in just six years! Under the current federal government approach, it’s set to double again by 2030.

Paired with big battery storage, wind and solar are powering homes, businesses, and industries – in a clean, affordable, reliable fashion.

Meanwhile, nuclear is decades away and comes with enormous risks: disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl, toxic waste, and staggering cost and timeline blowouts. Nuclear isn’t just dangerous – it’s a distraction from real climate action and makes no sense for Australia. 

We must tackle climate pollution head-on, and women in politics have an opportunity to lead a clean energy future. Write to them today and give the women in leadership the backing they need – Australians want a renewable not radioactive tomorrow.

This is the long-view that’s needed to mend climate damage, deliver affordable and secure energy and protect our communities – now and into the future. Thanks for your support and remember – together we are (renewable) powerful.   

Kelly   

Kelly O’Shanassy 
Chief Executive Officer 

* We collaborated with DemosAU and 1 Million Women to collect this research, published on 5 December 2024. You can read the full report on our website.

John Grimes, CEO, Smart Energy Council: “Nuclear is the biggest threat to the renewables industry in a decade. Cunning and dangerous.
A clear and present threat to renewable jobs, projects innovation and your business.”

Podcast episode about nuclear

“For 15 years working in energy and climate investment, I’ve fielded my fair share of BBQ questions. The top three have been:
• Can you recommend a good solar panel installer?
• When should I buy an electric vehicle?
• What’s your take on nuclear?

I have never answered the last one with much conviction.
With nuclear energy sparking global and Australian debates this year, it felt like the right time to dig deeper. Enter Simon Holmes à Court: self proclaimed energy geek, long-time industry observer, and someone who’s toured nuclear sites around the world.
The goal? To provide a nuanced perspective about nuclear technology in a space dominated by five-minute or less talking head news clips.
This is a complicated topic so it was great to sit down with Simon over a few hours to try and do it justice. We needed several hours more!

Here’s what we covered:
What people get wrong about nuclear;
The global nuclear landscape;
Safety, waste and water concerns;
Cost and generation profiles;
Timelines: if Australia started now, when we might have a nuclear energy plant?;
The potential role of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs);
Political and regulatory challenges; and
Whether “Pulp Fission” or “Fission Chips” is a better title for a nuclear power podcast.”

“Nuclear energy is not a religion…it’s just a way of boiling water”
~ Simon Holmes à Court on the latest episode of A Positive Climate

→ Listen to the podcast on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or your favourite platform here.

This 40-minute ABC Four Corners documentary on the topic is worth watching, if you’d like to understand the complexities of the topic: what is the future of nuclear power in Australia?

“Is nuclear a viable answer to Australia’s energy woes or is it a quixotic quest never to be realised? Peter Dutton says without nuclear we’ll never reach net zero, yet his own party’s former leader, Malcolm Turnbull, says it’s a “dangerously stupid” idea.
 
Many say the answer lies overseas – in countries that have already embraced nuclear as a part of their energy puzzle. In Nuclear Gamble, reporter Eric Campbell travels to the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world and the place where atomic energy all began – the United States of America – to find out if we should go all in on this controversial energy solution.”

In Australia as in the United States, some politicians see no shame in lying.

Here is what Jason Wood, a 56-year-old Australian politician representing the Liberal Party, wrote on Facebook:
“Renewables is a plan for higher prices that risks rolling blackouts”.

After 10 days, his Facebook post had recived 1,700 likes.

ACF: Nuclear not viable for Australia

The verdict is in. Nuclear is not viable for Australia. A parliamentary inquiry confirms what we already knew – nuclear doesn’t stack up. Too expensive – nuclear costs dwarf solar, already on 4 million Aussie rooftops. Too slow – by the time a reactor is built, we could power the country with renewables. Too risky – no answers on waste, water use, or who pays when things go wrong. Meanwhile, renewables already supply 40% of our electricity – cheaper, cleaner, and ready to scale. It’s time to invest in solutions that actually work.

Read more:
→ ACF – 19 February 2025:
Federal inquiry finds nuclear not economically viable