Nuclear Energy an “Unacceptable Risk” as Inquiry Finds It Too Slow and Too Expensive for Australia

A national inquiry into nuclear energy has ruled out its viability for Australia, citing massive costs, extended construction timelines, and significant financial risks to taxpayers. The House of Representatives Select Committee on Nuclear Energy released its findings on 25 February 2025, concluding that a nuclear power industry would take until at least the mid-2040s to be operational and could cost upwards of $600 billion.

The report, compiled after 19 days of public hearings across the country and the review of 857 submissions, found that nuclear energy would be an unwise investment, particularly given Australia’s existing energy options and the urgent need for emissions reduction by 2050. Labor MP and Committee Chair, Dan Repacholi, said the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that nuclear energy is too slow, too expensive, and too uncertain for Australia’s future energy mix.

The inquiry found that building nuclear power plants in Australia would be both time-consuming and financially risky. Testimony from global energy experts highlighted the history of cost blowouts and construction delays associated with nuclear projects, with Australian-specific challenges expected to push completion dates even further.

“The evidence presented to the Committee was clear,” the report stated. “Despite the Coalition’s claims that a nuclear reactor could be operational by 2035, the reality is that deployment in Australia from a standing start would likely take until the mid-2040s—at best.”

Financially, the report found nuclear energy to be an unviable investment. Estimates from the Smart Energy Council suggested the cost could reach $600 billion, with other testimony cautioning that it could be even higher. Bent Flyvbjerg, an expert on large-scale infrastructure projects, told the inquiry that nuclear power plants experience an average cost overrun of 120%, making them one of the most financially unpredictable energy sources.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis warned that, unlike countries such as South Korea and Japan, which have developed economies of scale in nuclear energy, Australia’s small-scale build-out would make it impossible to achieve similar cost reductions.

“The lack of private sector interest tells us everything we need to know,” Repacholi said. “If nuclear was a good investment, companies would be lining up to fund it. Instead, it would be Australian taxpayers carrying the risk—during a cost-of-living crisis, no less.”

Despite the report’s clear warnings, the Opposition has dismissed its conclusions, arguing that nuclear energy remains essential to Australia’s long-term energy future.

Coalition energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien labeled the inquiry a “Labor scare campaign” and claimed that nuclear power would be 44% more cost-effective than the government’s current renewable energy strategy.

“The government is trying to push an ideological argument against nuclear, rather than looking at the facts,” O’Brien said. “They’re happy to let taxpayers foot the bill for billions in renewables subsidies but are unwilling to consider nuclear, which could provide reliable, emissions-free energy for generations to come.”

The Coalition has proposed developing a fleet of nuclear reactors as part of Australia’s transition away from fossil fuels, with sites under consideration in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, and New South Wales. Despite the Committee’s findings, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has reaffirmed his commitment to nuclear, arguing that it remains the only viable alternative to coal and gas.

Environmental groups have welcomed the inquiry’s findings, reinforcing their long-held opposition to nuclear energy in Australia. Friends of the Earth Australia’s nuclear campaigner, Dr. Jim Green, said the report confirmed that nuclear power is “too slow, too expensive, and too dangerous” to be a serious option.

“This inquiry shows what we’ve known for decades—nuclear is a distraction,” Dr. Green said. “We have better, faster, and cheaper ways to transition to clean energy, and that’s where the focus should be.”

However, some industry groups have expressed frustration over the report’s conclusions. The Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) argued that the Committee was biased against nuclear from the outset and failed to adequately consider advances in reactor technology.

“We understand nuclear is expensive, but so is the energy transition as a whole,” an ANA spokesperson said. “The difference is that nuclear provides baseload power, unlike wind and solar, which require storage solutions. If Australia wants a truly reliable grid, nuclear should remain on the table.”

The debate over nuclear energy is set to be a major issue leading into the next federal election. The Albanese government has remained firm in its opposition to nuclear, instead prioritizing the expansion of renewables and battery storage. However, the Coalition’s commitment to nuclear suggests it will be a key campaign issue, with voters likely to be presented with starkly different energy policies.

With the Committee’s final report due by 30 April 2025, the nuclear debate is far from over. While the current findings suggest that nuclear remains an unlikely option for Australia, the political battle over the country’s energy future is only heating up.