Nuclear Inquiry discovers long delays and high costs, Interim Report shows
An interim report from the House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy suggests that nuclear power would take decades to implement in Australia and come at a high cost, raising questions about its viability compared to existing renewable energy options.
The House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy has released an interim report as part of its inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear power in Australia. The report examines the timeframe and costs associated with nuclear power generation, including the potential for small modular reactors (SMRs), which are still in the conceptual phase.
The interim report does not present final conclusions or recommendations, with the final report expected by 30 April 2025.
Committee Chair Dan Repacholi MP said the key issues explored so far have been whether nuclear power could be rolled out in an acceptable timeframe and how affordable it would be compared to existing energy technologies.
“From the evidence considered by the Committee to date, it is apparent that it could be well into the 2040s before we might see nuclear energy generated in Australia if that form of energy generation were to be pursued,” Mr Repacholi said. “This would be too late to meaningfully support the achievement of Australia’s climate and energy targets or to help our coal power plant workforce and communities as we transition away from coal power.”
The report highlights concerns over the costs associated with nuclear power, with evidence suggesting that Australia, as a newcomer to nuclear energy, could face construction costs up to double the international average. Mr Repacholi noted that this additional expense would likely fall on taxpayers.
“We also heard that nuclear power is more expensive than the alternatives both to build and to use. As a country with no previous nuclear power experience, we were told that Australia could experience a 100 percent premium on the estimated cost to build nuclear reactors – a cost that taxpayers would likely have to pay.”
The feasibility of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) was also examined, with the report noting that they remain in the design stage and are not commercially available. Mr Repacholi commented that, in comparison, solar and wind technologies are already established and providing power across the grid.
The inquiry has gathered evidence from a range of stakeholders, including federal government agencies responsible for Australia’s existing nuclear activities, energy experts, environmental groups, and First Nations representatives. Social licence issues were also raised, with concerns from community groups about the acceptance of nuclear power in Australia.
Responses to the report have been divided. The Climate Council, which contributed evidence to the inquiry, said the findings reinforce warnings about the risks and costs of nuclear energy.
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said: “The climate crisis is here, now. Australians are already facing more unnatural disasters—record-breaking floods, deadly heatwaves and bushfires, and declining rainfall. In the 15 years that we would be waiting for a single watt of nuclear energy to enter the grid, our climate pollution would soar.”
Committee Deputy Chair Ted O’Brien MP and other Coalition members issued a dissenting report, arguing that the inquiry was politically motivated and failed to consider broader issues such as energy security, employment in regional areas, and the potential for nuclear to provide 24/7 baseload power.
They challenged the estimated cost of nuclear power presented in the interim report, contending that Labor’s renewable energy transition would be more expensive. The dissenting report also criticised the government’s approach to coal plant closures, stating that it would leave gaps in the energy grid.
Public hearings have taken place across Australia, with a final report due in April.
