Could nuclear power be the solution to Australia’s energy transition, or is it a costly distraction? A new parliamentary inquiry has taken a deep dive into the feasibility of nuclear energy, weighing its potential against the challenges of cost, delays, and existing renewable alternatives.
The report, which examines the costs, risks, and potential benefits of nuclear, as well as its impact on workers and the economy, could shape the nation’s energy strategy for decades to come.
After the debate over nuclear power as a viable energy source for Australia has been reignited, a recent parliamentary inquiry has cast a long shadow over its potential. The interim report, which was tabled in Federal Parliament, paints a grim picture of nuclear energy’s role in Australia’s future, suggesting that it may be a gigantic waste of taxpayer money and time.
The findings of the report are unequivocal: nuclear power is ‘not a timely or practical solution’ to the country’s emissions challenges, nor is it a ‘viable investment of taxpayer money.’The report underscores the fact that initial construction costs for nuclear facilities are typically double that of other energy projects, and the electricity they produce is more expensive than alternatives that are readily available today.
One of the conclusions of the inquiry is the assessment of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology. Touted by nuclear advocates as a game-changer, SMRs are still so experimental that their costs cannot be accurately predicted, as they have yet to be successfully produced or implemented in a commercial setting. This uncertainty adds another layer of risk to an already precarious proposition.
The report also highlights nuclear power’s potential impact on the job market, noting that any employment opportunities generated by the nuclear industry would come too late for the current workforce.
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) have raised concerns about the potential destruction of renewable energy jobs in pursuit of a speculative and significantly smaller number of nuclear jobs that may or may not materialise in the distant future.
ETU National Secretary Michael Wright has been vocal in his criticism, urging Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to reconsider his nuclear energy proposal. Wright argues that the report’s findings are clear: nuclear power offers less energy than Australia needs, at a cost that the country cannot justify.
He emphasises that the pursuit of nuclear energy could undermine the tens of thousands of real jobs being created today, replacing them with a tenuous promise of a few thousand jobs by 2040.
The report also points out that nuclear energy is ‘too slow to replace’ Australia’s ageing generation infrastructure.
‘Even on the unrealistic timelines being promised by Peter Dutton, at least seven coal generators would shut down before the first nuclear generator started up. It is more expensive than solar, wind or coal even with the most optimistic assumptions.’
This would leave a significant gap in the country’s energy supply, one that could be more effectively and efficiently filled by renewable sources like solar and wind, which are not only cheaper but also faster to deploy.
Wright added that the renewable energy sector in Australia is currently experiencing a boom, with a surge in the hiring of apprentice electrical workers who are entering the renewable and battery fast lane.
‘Tens of thousands of apprentice electrical workers are being hired into the renewable and battery fast lane today. Their future is on the line. If this nuclear plan goes ahead, most ETU members will be retired or dead before it creates a single electrical job,’ Wright said.
We invite you to share your thoughts on this critical issue. Join the conversation in the comments below and let the YourLifeChoices community know where you stand on the path to a cleaner, more sustainable energy landscape.
Also read: How understanding energy comparisons can save you more
