Why Australia Keeps Missing Nuclear

A fixation on "lowest-cost" could cost well beyond the marketed price tag...

The idea of a nuclear energy industry has never fully faded from the Australian fancy, and objectively, it still makes considerable sense. Australia is obviously large in landmass, which is mostly empty; sits in the middle of a tectonic plate; and experiences comparatively little of the inclement weather that many of our near neighbours do along the Ring of Fire.

There are multiple points here that not reflected by either the pro- or anti-nuclear arguments that we consider worth exploring, if only to open the discussion to a wider perspective:

• it’s not just about the cost;

• supply chain vulnerability and the risks of authoritarian capture; and

• getting to grip with issues rather than relying on simple denial, matters.

The Money Argument Alone Isn’t Useful

Part of the motivation for this piece was the recent media article on InnovationAus regarding the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) 2024-2025 GenCost report. Essentially, CSIRO decided that, for a second time in the last 12 months, investing in nuclear energy wasn’t worth it as it’s now more expensive than renewable energy options.

In and of itself, it is parsimonious to discuss the merits of national energy schemes in a way which prioritises money and ignores most other considerations. After all, were money the sole consideration, many national projects – including renewables – would be unlikely to get off the ground. Financial cost is clearly a key consideration. But it is only one dimension, and singling it out neglects the strategic circumstances of today’s global realities, with which Australia must contend. Ignoring such circumstances and their complexity, presenting a simplistic view adds to confusion, and an erosion of trust, among voters in an already prolonged argument on Australia’s energy security.