This week Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen rejected the proposition of replacing Australia's coal-fired power plants with small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), saying the cost – A$387 billion – was too great to taxpayers.
Analysis from the Climate Change Department indicated that 71 SMRs would be required to match the current power output of Australia's existing coal-fired stations, which generate a combined 21,300 megawatts of electricity.
Ongoing national debate
Bowen's comments come amid an ongoing national debate on nuclear energy's role in Australia's decarbonisation strategy.
Opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have endorsed nuclear options, referencing global trends and suggesting that the cost could be absorbed by the market rather than solely by taxpayers.
Bowen dismisses these arguments, saying the commercial viability of nuclear power is still an unresolved issue.
The departmental analysis estimates that each megawatt of nuclear-generated electricity would carry a capital cost of A$18.1 million, or around A$5.4 billion per reactor.
Costs dwarf solar and wind
This is significantly higher than the costs for large-scale solar and onshore wind, which come in at A$1 million and A$2 million per megawatt respectively.
According to a GenCost report cited by the Climate Change Department, the levelised cost of electricity for solar and wind is estimated to be between A$60 and A$100 per MWh by 2030, whereas SMRs would cost between A$200 and A$350 per MWh.
“The opposition needs to explain why Australians will be slugged with a A$387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason,” Bowen said.
While O’Brien has dismissed these cost estimates, the analysis raises critical questions about the economic feasibility of incorporating nuclear power into Australia’s energy landscape.