Building a nuclear power plant in Australia could cost up to twice as much as renewable energy, according to the latest GenCost report from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
Despite nuclear reactors’ long lifespan of 60-80 years, the report finds they offer minimal financial advantage compared to wind and solar energy.
These findings challenge Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claim that nuclear power could reduce energy bills, ahead of the Coalition’s policy costings release.
The CSIRO stated that renewable energy, combined with transmission and firming technologies like batteries and gas plants, remains the cheapest energy solution.
CSIRO chief economist Paul Graham explained that energy projects were typically funded with 30-year loans, matching the lifespan of most renewables.
While nuclear plants could theoretically extend debt repayment terms, higher interest payments and refurbishment costs — estimated in billions of dollars after 40 years — undermine these potential gains.
Furthermore, the report addressed nuclear proponents’ claims of high operational efficiency, noting that global nuclear reactors average an 80% capacity factor — significantly below the 93% claimed in the United States.
It also drew parallels with coal plants, observing how renewables have diminished their capacity factors in Australia.
The CSIRO reaffirmed its projection that building Australia’s first nuclear reactor could take at least 15 years, citing complex regulatory, planning and financing challenges.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen described the Coalition’s nuclear policy as “wildly optimistic”, while Dutton criticised the government’s influence over the report.
The CSIRO highlighted falling costs for renewables and batteries, further strengthening the economic case for clean energy over nuclear power.
The GenCost report concludes that firmed renewables are the most cost-effective pathway for Australia’s energy transition.