07/09/2026
𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐔𝐩𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞
By The National Herald
Nuclear Power: The $100 Billion Question Australia Still Hasn't Answered
Part Two — The Nuclear Waiting Game and the Cost of Choosing Nuclear
If the cost of nuclear power is the first major problem confronting the Liberal Party and One Nation's nuclear ambitions, the second is time.
Australia's nuclear debate has often been presented as though the only thing standing between the country and a fleet of reactors is political will. If governments simply stop arguing, lift the bans, select the sites and get on with construction, the reactors will supposedly appear in time to replace Australia's ageing coal fleet.
Unfortunately, large infrastructure projects do not work that way.
Before construction can begin, Australia has to establish the legal and regulatory framework for commercial nuclear power, undertake detailed environmental assessments, establish specialist regulatory capability, develop a skilled workforce, negotiate supply arrangements, prepare sites, secure financing and settle the enormous number of technical and legal questions associated with nuclear generation.
Only after much of that work has been completed does the construction timetable become the dominant issue.
That matters because Australia's coal-fired power stations are not going to wait patiently for the nuclear industry to catch up.
The Timetable Problem
The Coalition's proposal has targeted the first two establishment power stations for operation during the 2035–2037 period, with the remaining sites progressively developed through to 2050.
That is an ambitious target, particularly for a country starting without a commercial nuclear power industry.
CSIRO has previously assessed nuclear development in Australia as requiring a lengthy lead time, while other organisations including the Grattan Institute and Climate Council have warned that the time required to establish the necessary legal, regulatory and industrial infrastructure has been underestimated by political proponents.
The important point is not that a 10-to-12-year timeframe is physically impossible. It is that Australia has never demonstrated that it can complete a commercial nuclear project within such a timeframe because it has never built one.
A political promise is therefore not the same thing as a construction schedule.
Anyone who has ever dealt with a major infrastructure project understands the difference.
Meanwhile, the Coal Fleet Is Retiring
This creates a potentially serious problem.
Australia's coal-fired power stations are ageing, and AEMO's planning anticipates substantial coal retirements during the 2030s. Those closures are not hypothetical events occurring sometime in the distant future. They form part of the electricity system Australia is already planning around.
If Australia's first nuclear reactors take 15 years or more to arrive, what supplies the electricity in the meantime?
The answer cannot be nuclear because the reactors will not yet exist.
Australia would therefore need to continue building renewable generation, storage, transmission and dispatchable generation even if it simultaneously committed to nuclear.
This creates an uncomfortable possibility for nuclear proponents: rather than replacing the energy transition, nuclear could simply become an additional layer of expenditure sitting on top of it.
Australia would still need the renewable and storage infrastructure required to keep the grid functioning during the long period before the reactors arrive.
The "Baseload" Argument Is Becoming Outdated
One of the favourite arguments used by nuclear advocates is that nuclear provides reliable "baseload" electricity. There is truth in the observation that nuclear reactors can operate continuously for long periods, but Australia's electricity system of the future is not simply going to be a larger version of the electricity system of the 1970s.
Modern electricity planning is increasingly about flexibility rather than simply building enormous generators that operate continuously.
Batteries can store electricity when supply is plentiful and release it when demand rises. Pumped hydro can perform a similar function on a much larger scale. Transmission allows electricity to move between regions, while demand-response technologies can reduce pressure during periods of extreme demand. Gas generation can provide dispatchable backup when required.
Solar does not need to produce electricity at midnight to be useful. A battery does not need to generate continuously to provide grid reliability. Pumped hydro does not need to operate every hour of every day.
The question for the electricity system is therefore not simply, "Which generator produces electricity 24 hours a day?"
It is, "What combination of generation, storage, transmission and dispatchable capacity provides reliable electricity at the lowest overall system cost?"
That is a much more difficult question, but it is also the question that actually matters.
Australia Doesn't Have to Choose Between Reliability and Renewables
The political debate has increasingly been framed as though Australians must choose between nuclear power and unreliable renewable energy.
That is a false choice.
AEMO's Integrated System Plan looks at the electricity grid as an interconnected system rather than a collection of isolated generators. Its planning pathway relies heavily on renewable generation, transmission and storage, supported by dispatchable generation where necessary.
That does not mean the electricity system is going to be powered by solar panels alone. It means Australia can combine different technologies to perform different functions.
The irony is that the nuclear debate sometimes criticises renewable energy for requiring storage while ignoring the fact that nuclear also requires an enormous supporting electricity system. A nuclear reactor still needs transmission. It still needs maintenance outages. It still needs a functioning grid capable of distributing its output.
There is no generator that operates in isolation from the rest of the electricity system.
Nuclear Waste Is a Legitimate Issue, but Not the Biggest Economic Problem
The debate over nuclear waste also needs a little more honesty from both sides.
Radioactive waste is not some unsolvable scientific mystery. Australia already possesses considerable expertise in managing radioactive materials through its research and medical sectors, and other countries have developed systems for managing nuclear waste.
But establishing a commercial nuclear industry would inevitably create additional responsibilities and costs. Australia would need long-term arrangements for the storage and management of radioactive waste, as well as eventual decommissioning of reactors.
These costs cannot simply be wished away.
At the same time, opponents should avoid pretending that nuclear waste is the reason nuclear power is unaffordable. It isn't. The much larger economic problem is the extraordinary capital cost, financing risk and lengthy development period associated with constructing reactors in a country that has never operated a commercial nuclear power industry.
That is where the serious economic debate belongs.
The Real Question Is Opportunity Cost
Ultimately, the most important question Australia should be asking is not whether nuclear power is technologically possible.
It obviously is.
The question is what Australia gets for the enormous amount of money required to build it.
Imagine that Australia has $100 billion available for new energy infrastructure. The question isn't simply whether $100 billion can build nuclear reactors. It obviously can build something.
The question is what combination of generation, storage, transmission and other infrastructure provides the greatest amount of reliable electricity and emissions reduction for that $100 billion.
Every dollar spent on a nuclear program is a dollar that cannot simultaneously be spent somewhere else. It cannot build the same transmission line twice. It cannot build the same battery twice. It cannot build pumped hydro twice. It cannot upgrade the electricity network twice.
That is why comparing a nuclear reactor against a solar farm on a simplistic "cost per megawatt" basis is inadequate. The proper comparison is between complete electricity systems.
And when Australian institutions such as CSIRO and AEMO model the system at that level, nuclear does not emerge as the obvious low-cost winner.
This Is Where the Liberal and One Nation Arguments Run Into Trouble
The Liberal Party's nuclear proposal is enormous, extending across decades and requiring a substantial government financial commitment. One Nation's proposal is considerably smaller, but its argument still depends upon the assumption that Australia can reproduce the economics of an established nuclear industry without first having the industry that makes those economics possible.
Both arguments therefore suffer from the same political temptation: they make the reactor sound like the project.
It isn't.
The reactor is only one component of the project.
The real project is creating Australia's nuclear industry.
That means establishing the regulators, developing the workforce, building supply chains, establishing fuel arrangements, preparing sites, connecting transmission infrastructure, developing waste-management systems and creating the institutional expertise required to operate the industry safely for generations.
Once that reality is acknowledged, the supposedly simple nuclear solution becomes considerably more complicated.
The Nuclear Option Should Be Debated Seriously, Not Sold as a Fantasy
There is nothing wrong with Australia investigating nuclear power. Indeed, a mature country should be capable of examining every credible energy technology without turning the discussion into a tribal political war.
But there is a huge difference between saying "we should investigate nuclear power" and saying "nuclear power will provide cheap electricity and solve Australia's energy problems."
The first is a reasonable proposition.
The second requires evidence.
If a first Australian reactor can really be constructed for $6.8 billion, proponents should show us exactly how that figure has been calculated and what it includes. If it can be delivered within the promised timeframe, show Australians the detailed construction schedule. If private investors are genuinely prepared to fund the projects without extraordinary taxpayer guarantees, show us the investment commitments. If inland reactors can operate reliably through Australia's worst droughts, show us the water allocations. If SMRs are going to transform nuclear economics, show us the commercial projects that prove it.
This is not anti-nuclear.
It is pro-accountability.
The Bill Doesn't Disappear Because Politicians Stop Talking About It
Australia can build nuclear reactors if it decides that is what it wants to do. The question is whether doing so represents the best use of Australia's limited financial resources, engineering capacity, water resources and time.
The latest CSIRO analysis continues to find that renewable generation remains the foundation of the least-cost pathway for Australia's electricity system, while AEMO's planning continues to place renewable generation, storage and transmission at the centre of the transition.
That does not prove that nuclear can never have a role in Australia. Technology changes, costs change and circumstances change. If nuclear technology becomes genuinely competitive, Australia should be prepared to reconsider its position.
But at present, the evidence does not justify presenting nuclear as the cheap and easy answer.
The Coalition is proposing a nuclear program that could involve more than $100 billion in government equity over decades, while One Nation is promoting a much cheaper headline construction figure based on overseas experience that does not necessarily translate to Australia's first commercial reactor.
And this is the fundamental question that neither side has adequately answered:
What will Australians actually pay for nuclear electricity once the entire system is included?
Not just the reactor.
Not just the concrete.
Not just the turbine.
The regulation, financing, transmission, workforce, water, fuel, waste management, security, insurance, construction risk, delays and eventual decommissioning all have to be considered.
Put all of that on the table and then compare it honestly with the alternatives.
If nuclear wins that contest, build it.
But if it doesn't, Australians should not be asked to spend hundreds of billions of dollars simply because nuclear sounds reassuring in a political speech.
The National Herald has no objection to nuclear power being investigated. What we should object to is politicians selling Australians a fantasy that the world's most capital-intensive form of new electricity generation can somehow become cheap simply because they put the word "nuclear" on a policy document.
Australia deserves better than slogans. It deserves an energy policy based on engineering, economics and evidence.
Because reactors may eventually produce electricity.
But one thing is certain from day one:
The bill will be real.
