Is nuclear energy
safe?
expensive?
sustainable?
right for Australia?
Your nuclear questions answered
From costs and safety to environmental impact, get straight answers to your nuclear energy questions.
Cost
Why invest in nuclear energy when renewables and batteries are getting so much cheaper?
The prices of solar panels and wind turbines have fallen significantly over time. However, they require a lot of transmission and storage to reliably provide large volumes of power, and these are not cheap. Nuclear requires very little additional transmission or storage.
Public costs for grid-scale batteries in Australia have remained similar for the past 7 years. Over that time, CSIRO has repeatedly assumed that we’ll see rapid cost reductions that are far more optimistic than official US projections.
Some evidence indicates lithium batteries are unlikely to fall below the commonly predicted price threshold of $100/kWh by 2030.
Doesn’t CSIRO show that nuclear is double the cost of renewables?
CSIRO’s GenCost report shows a wide range of possible costs for nuclear power, from $155 to $252 per MWh. The low end of this range is close to the high end of the cost range for a renewables-dominated system, which range from $100 to $143 per MWh.
In fact, correcting three unrealistic assumptions made in the GenCost report makes nuclear cost-competitive with renewables:
- Utilisation rate — GenCost assumes nuclear plants in Australia would operate at as low as 53% capacity, when nuclear plants in the US average 93%, and plants worldwide average over 80%. Like the US, we would want to get as much energy as possible out of our nuclear plants to keep costs down, rather than forcing the plants to ramp down to make room for wind and solar output.
- Lifespan — GenCost models nuclear plant lifespan as 30 years, while 60 or more years is far more realistic. Modelling a 30-year lifespan for nuclear is like assuming you’ll demolish a house as soon as the mortgage is paid off.
- Fuel cost — GenCost locks in uranium prices at the very high levels seen from the Ukraine war, despite projections that prices will fall over time. However, uranium is such a cheap fuel that this does not impact the end result as much as the first two factors.
Critically, the CSIRO’s estimates do not appear to include the full cost of all transmission and storage needed to support a 90% renewables grid, nor the higher costs associated with government-mandated offshore wind. If these costs were to be included, a nuclear grid would likely end up being much cheaper than a renewables grid.
Why does AEMO* claim more renewables are the cheapest way for Australia to reduce emissions?
* The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) manages and operates Australia’s electricity and gas markets.
AEMO's energy transition plan relies on unfounded assumptions, but nuclear offers a more realistic path to reducing emissions.
AEMO claims in the Integrated System Plan (ISP) that “renewable energy, connected by transmission and distribution, firmed with storage and backed up by gas-powered generation” is the cheapest way to transition to a net zero economy.
However, this claim relies on unrealistic assumptions and policy mandates that do not reflect real-world challenges. The ISP does not test a renewables option against a nuclear option, citing the current ban on nuclear power as the reason.
The ISP also does not find the cheapest way to build a renewables grid, as it assumes government targets must be met, no matter how unrealistic or expensive. The plan prescribes, rather than predicts, 82% renewables adoption by 2030 — which is highly unlikely according to renewable energy experts.
AEMO assumes households will do the heavy lifting by buying electric vehicles en masse to feed electricity back into the grid and investing hundreds of billions of dollars in home batteries and rooftop solar systems. The ISP does not guarantee its plan for the grid will ensure reliability across a plausible range of weather conditions in future decades. These fundamental issues mean the ISP cannot be used to support any claims that renewables are a better option than nuclear.
Isn’t there a high risk of cost blowouts and delays for large infrastructure projects like nuclear?
Large infrastructure projects will always have risks of delays and cost blowouts, and nuclear has been built both well and badly in different places and times. These risks can be mitigated by following best practice from the countries that build nuclear well.
A 2014 paper that analysed 180 plants and reactors found an average cost overrun of 117%. However, the authors noted most of the overruns happened in the US in the 1980s, and were largely the result of high interest rates and changing regulations that meant the design changed partway through construction.
How can these pitfalls be avoided? Firstly, Australia should select a design that has worked well overseas. The first reactor of its kind to be built tends to be very expensive, so choosing a proven design that has already been built many times will help to reduce costly delays.
Secondly, Australia should build larger nuclear power plants at a limited number of sites so economies of scale can keep down costs. By building four or more reactors on, or near, existing coal sites, water and transmission assets can be reused and fixed overheads at each site can be spread across a greater amount of electricity generation — making electricity from the nuclear plants cheaper.
Thirdly, Australia should ensure the interests of the entities responsible for building, operating and owning nuclear plants are aligned. This ensures the builder will want to finish the nuclear plants as quickly as possible, while still ensuring safe, efficient and reliable operations in the longer run. With careful and efficient planning and regulation, Australia can avoid the cost blowouts and delays experienced by other countries that have resumed building nuclear reactors in recent years.
Related FAQ: Isn’t the world abandoning nuclear?
Shouldn’t we expect nuclear plants to face the same cost blowouts and delays as Snowy 2.0?
While it is possible for any large-scale projects to face cost blowouts and delays, nuclear plants and pumped hydro projects like Snowy 2.0 are very different.
Pumped hydro projects present hard and expensive engineering problems and do not deliver economies of scale because each project is different from the last and must be tailored to its local environment.
Nuclear plants, on the other hand, can be built using the same basic design in many different locations and do not require significant underground tunnelling, which has been the key reason for Snowy 2.0’s massive delays and cost increases. In addition, nuclear plants can be placed near existing coal plants to use existing transmission lines and routes, avoiding the other $8 billion it will cost to link Snowy 2.0 to the rest of the grid.
Major infrastructure projects in Australia generally have higher costs than in other countries, due to issues such as industrial relations and project management. Australia will face these potential costs regardless of whether we’re building nuclear power, pumped-hydro storage, or transmission. We need to compare energy choices based on the risks that differ.
Safety
Haven’t accidents at nuclear plants caused thousands of deaths?
No, there have only ever been three significant accidents at nuclear plants: Three Mile Island with no deaths, Chernobyl (a poorly designed Soviet plant) with fewer than 100 direct deaths, and Fukushima with one related death. Including these, nuclear is still safer than nearly every other source of electricity.
Contrary to popular belief, Chernobyl did not cause thousands of deaths. Of the 600 workers present on the day, 134 suffered from radiation sickness and 30 died from the blast and radiation exposure. The only clear increase in cancer risk for the surrounding population was for thyroid cancer, which has a very high survival rate, and potentially leukaemia and cataracts for some workers at the plant.
Following the Fukushima accident, only one worker died. His death 7 years later from lung cancer is thought to be linked to the radiation he was exposed to while measuring radiation levels at Fukushima shortly after the meltdown.
To put these numbers in perspective, one petrol station explosion in Russia last year injured 115 people and killed 35. In June this year, a massive factory fire in South Korea started by a lithium battery explosion injured 30 people and killed 22.
While widely known, the radiation release from the accident at Three Mile Island was so minor that the maximum exposure would have been about the same as a resident moving to Denver, Colorado.
Including all of these, nuclear energy is still safer than nearly every other source of electricity, which cause more deaths from accidents and pollution.
Source: OurWorldinData
Couldn't there be another accident like Chernobyl?
No, a nuclear explosion like the one at Chernobyl is virtually impossible with modern reactors. The Chernobyl disaster occurred because three things happened simultaneously.
First, the reactor design allowed a positive feedback loop to cause a runaway chain reaction. In modern reactors, the nuclear reaction slows down when it gets too hot, preventing this positive feedback loop from happening.
Second, the Chernobyl operators ignored safety protocols to conduct a risky experiment because they were ordered to by their Soviet superiors. Modern reactors are run by competent operators who follow strict protocols and are trained to respond correctly to all possible scenarios.
Finally, the Chernobyl explosion only spread radioactive material because the reactor lacked a strong containment structure. Modern reactors have an airtight containment structure made of steel-reinforced concrete, which prevents radioactive material from escaping into the environment in the highly unlikely event of a meltdown.
What about Fukushima and Three Mile Island accidents?
Both the Fukushima and Three Mile Island incidents demonstrated the robustness of nuclear safety measures. In both cases, no deaths or serious health impacts were caused by radiation in the local communities.
The Three Mile Island accident in 1979 resulted in a partial meltdown, but the containment building functioned as designed, preventing significant radiation release. An interagency report concluded it did not raise radioactivity enough to cause even one death from cancer — and no contamination was found in water, soil, or plant samples.
During the Fukushima disaster in 2011, despite core meltdowns caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami, the containment measures were effective, and there were no radiation-related deaths or illnesses in the local community. In the workers present during and after the accident, only one death from lung cancer has been linked to radiation exposure 7 years later. There has been no evidence of adverse health effects on local animal species from the Fukushima accident.
Wouldn’t a nuclear reactor act like a bomb if hit by missiles or a hijacked aircraft?
No, nuclear plants are among the most robust industrial facilities ever built.
Nuclear plants have protective shells made of concrete and steel more than a metre thick that are strong enough to withstand direct impact from a large aircraft. This makes it extremely difficult for an enemy to hit a reactor with enough firepower to release any radioactive material. Nuclear power stations may actually be the safest, and most defendable part of an electricity grid because they are far less vulnerable than other parts of the system, such as transmission networks.
Relying on renewables rather than nuclear would mean more vulnerable distribution targets that require protection over a much greater area. Switchyards, substations, hydroelectric dams and the big batteries used to firm renewables would be much easier and less protected targets than a nuclear plant.
When attacking the Ukrainian electricity system, Russia has focussed on trying to destroy Ukraine’s transmission network, hydroelectric plants and fossil fuel plants. None of Ukraine’s nuclear plants have suffered catastrophic damage. In fact, Ukraine plans to start building four new nuclear reactors this year to compensate for its lost energy capacity.
Isn’t it wrong to use nuclear energy when it creates lots of waste?
Nuclear fuel is extremely dense, producing a tiny amount of waste compared to coal, gas, wind, or solar.
Nuclear waste is made up of solid rods stored in metal canisters encased in concrete casks. In the United States, nuclear waste is expected to reach 135,000 tonnes by 2050, while solar panel waste there will reach 10,000,000 tonnes – about 75 times more.
Solar panel waste poses a serious risk to the environment and human health because it contains cadmium and lead, which are known to cause cancer and neurological and cardiovascular problems. Currently, up to 90% of solar panels go to landfill as toxic waste at the end of their life due to challenges with recycling their materials.
In contrast, many countries recycle used nuclear fuel rods, greatly reducing the amount of radioactive waste needing to be stored.
Doesn’t nuclear waste remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years?
Because radioactivity from used nuclear fuel rapidly declines over time, the risk posed by nuclear waste is minimal compared to waste from other sources.
After 100 years, you could stand 3 metres from a used fuel bundle (the most radioactive waste produced) for four hours with no risk to your health. After 400 years, you could hold a fuel bundle for two hours with no risk to your health.
This is in contrast to waste such as arsenic and mercury, which can enter the environment through industrial gold miningand coal power generation, remaining dangerously toxic forever and posing a substantial risk to people’s health.
Used nuclear fuel can also be recycled, which produces more energy while reducing the radioactivity of waste. Many countries have recycled hundreds or even thousands of tonnes of used fuel, including the UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Russia, India, China and Japan. Recycling can reduce high-level waste to one fifth of the volume and unlock an extra 25-30% more energy from used fuel.
Isn’t it too hard to find somewhere to store waste from nuclear plants?
Australia already has established practices for storing nuclear waste from our Lucas Heights reactor, which produces vital nuclear material used in diagnosing cancer and other health conditions.
Australia’s existing used fuel rods are sent to secure storage areas to cool down before being shipped to the UK, France or the US for recycling. The remaining waste is eventually returned to interim storage on-site, only two kilometres from the Sydney suburb of Engadine.
It is also true that the federal government will need to decide on a longer-term storage facility for nuclear waste arising from the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program. This facility could also be used to store waste from nuclear power plants. Australia can learn from Finland, which is building a repository in nonporous rock to safely store nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years.
Can a year’s worth of nuclear waste from a reactor really fit in a Coke can?
No, but the nuclear waste produced from all the electricity a person uses over their lifetime could fit in a Coke can.
A typical 1000 MW nuclear reactor produces three cubic metres of high-level waste a year when used fuel is recycled. This is very small compared to waste produced by other sources.
So, what do Coke cans have to do with anything? This comparison comes from a calculation based on Canadian reactors and electricity usage, showing that the used nuclear fuel from one person’s entire lifetime of electricity in their home would fit comfortably inside a Coke can.
Don’t nuclear plants give off dangerous radiation that harms local communities?
No. The amount of radiation you would receive from living next to a nuclear plant is miniscule and comparable taking an hour-long flight between Sydney and Canberra once a year.
There is reliable evidence these low levels of radiation do not harm human health.
In fact, radiation levels are so low that communities are exposed to more than twice as much radiation from existing coal plants.
How can nuclear plants safely run for 100 years when the oldest reactor hasn’t even reached 60 years?
New reactors are consistently being designed to last a minimum of 60 years, and even older nuclear plants designed to achieve much less are receiving licences for 60 years of operation. Experts see no major barriers to achieving 100 year lifespans.
The oldest nuclear plant in operation worldwide is the Beznau plant in Switzerland, which has been running for 55 years as of 2024. However, it is common practice in the US for reactors to be granted operating licence extensions for 60 years. A fifth of US reactors have even applied, or are planning to apply, for an 80-year licence. And the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now talking about renewing licences for 100 years.
The reason nuclear plants can safely operate for so long is because they have very few truly life-limiting components. Equipment like pumps, valves, and heat exchangers can all be maintained, repaired, replaced or upgraded. As long as the reactor pressure vessel (containing the reactor core and cooling system) and the containment structure (the airtight shell around the reactor) remain in good condition, plants can continue to operate safely for many decades.
Environment
Won’t nuclear be too slow to help Australia meet its climate targets?
Nuclear energy will not help achieve our 2030 targets, but it’s likely to be crucial for achieving our 2050 targets in a realistic and low-cost way.
While renewables are easy to add to the grid at first, costs tend to skyrocket the closer we get to a renewables-dominated system and impacts on regional communities will continue to grow as more transmission, solar and wind farms are built. These problems mean achieving net zero with only wind, solar and storage is likely to be difficult and expensive.
And in fact, Australia is already on track to miss our 2030 targets under the current renewables rollout. Instead of focusing all our efforts on achieving short-term targets that are now virtually unattainable, it is much more important that Australia finds the most realistic and low-cost path to reach net zero by 2050.
Although it will likely take 10-12 years to build Australia’s first nuclear reactor, subsequent reactors could be added every couple of years, or even more often. This means there is time to plan a nuclear rollout that will help Australia reach net zero by 2050 and provide a clean and reliable source of energy for future generations.
Aren’t renewables better than nuclear at reducing emissions?
No, nuclear has the lowest lifecycle emissions of any energy technology.
While wind power is similar, solar power currently has much higher lifetime emissions because solar panels require significant electricity to build and are typically manufactured using coal-dominated grids.
Lifecycle or ‘embodied’ emissions are critical to measure when considering the climate effects of technology. While a solar panel itself does not emit carbon dioxide to produce energy in Australia, manufacturing it nonetheless creates emissions in the country where it was made; which is often China.
The same principle applies to the metal and concrete in nuclear power plants, wind turbines, transmission lines, and even uranium mining and refining. When all these are accounted for, nuclear produces the least emissions for every kWh delivered to homes and businesses.
Source: OurWorldinData
Aren’t nuclear plants harmful to the local environment?
Nuclear energy requires the least amount of land of any energy source; much lower than coal plants, hydro dams, solar farms or wind farms.
For every square kilometre of land required to produce electricity with nuclear power, solar needs at least 63 square kilometres — even before accounting for additional storage and transmission. The land use of wind power is harder to compare, but land-clearing for wind, often on ridge-tops where it’s windiest, is increasingly causing concern among environmental groups.
Because nuclear plants built on or near existing coal plant sites can utilise existing transmission infrastructure, they can avoid the need to build an expected 10,000 km of additional transmission lines to support renewables in regional areas of Australia.
Nuclear power can also reduce the number of regional landholders and communities affected by energy infrastructure during the transition.
Wouldn’t a nuclear plant need lots of new transmission lines anyway?
If needed, upgrades to transmission lines to carry power from a nuclear plant would be along existing routes and therefore far less costly than the massive expansion of the transmission network currently planned to support renewables.
Claims that nuclear plants would require a lot of new transmission lines rest on the assumption that transmission lines will be full from renewables by the time nuclear reactors are built. However, this presupposes that we will continue building renewables at the current rate. If we were to prioritise building reliable sources of electricity like nuclear — rather than intermittent sources like renewables — transmission lines will have space for nuclear power and extensive upgrades will not be needed.
If the planned nuclear plant capacity exceeds the capacity of the existing coal plant, it may be necessary to upgrade some of the existing transmission lines. However, this is much cheaper than building large amounts of transmission along new pathways, as required by renewables.
Don’t nuclear plants require too much water for a dry country like Australia?
Nuclear plants consume only about 25% more water than conventional coal plants for cooling.
This means if nuclear plants are built on or near existing coal plants, the effect on the local water supply will be modest, though this depends on the design chosen.
Most nuclear plants are near oceans or large lakes so they can use simple ‘once-through’ cooling. This pumps through lots of water (170L per kWh) but consumes almost none, and returns it to the source. Once-through cooling would heat up smaller water sources like rivers too much, so for plants near rivers, engineers use ‘recirculating’ cooling where evaporation cools the water before returning the rest. Australia’s coal plants with recirculating designs typically use 2L per kWh, while globally nuclear plants use about 2.5L per kWh.
Other
Isn’t nuclear energy still banned in Australia?
Nuclear reactors in Australia are not allowed to produce electricity, but Sydney has been home to a nuclear reactor used for research and medicine for 66 years.
The first research reactor at Lucas Heights, known as HIFAR, was built in 1958 and operated until 2007 when it was superseded by OPAL, a reactor that operates to this day. OPAL produces vital nuclear material used in diagnosing cancer and other health conditions.
A legislative ban on constructing nuclear power plants in Australia was introduced at the federal level in 1998. Prior to this, Victoria had introduced a state ban in 1983, with a New South Wales ban introduced in 1986. In 2007, Queensland also introduced a state ban.
The Australian government has not always dismissed nuclear energy as an option. A nuclear power plant was almost built in Jervis Bay in the 1970s, but plans were scuttled after a change in government because coal-fired power was found to be cheaper.
Now that governments are wanting to reduce emissions and move away from reliance on coal, nuclear energy has resurfaced as a genuine option for the Australian grid.
Is nuclear power an unpopular idea among Australians?
No, the majority of Australians support nuclear.
Around 60% of Australians support using nuclear power for our electricity system. Support for removing the ban on nuclear has been increasing over the past few years and is highest amongst young people. Support for nuclear power amongst those aged 18 to 29 has grown from 40% in 2011 to 66% in 2024.
Is nuclear power incompatible with renewables?
Yes and no; nuclear reactors can ramp up and down to make room for wind and solar power, but this is an expensive way to fill in the gaps left by renewables.
Nuclear plants are able to reduce output when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, and increase when it is not. Peaking gas is also often used to support renewables. The choice between nuclear and peaking gas is like deciding to take an Uber or purchase a car. If you use the car for a short trip once a month, it is cheaper to take an Uber. But if you commute with it daily, a car is far more cost-effective.
Nuclear plants cost a lot up-front but are cheap to run, so they are worthwhile if you need them to run consistently. Gas peaker plants are cheap to build, but cost a lot to run, so you want them if you only need to run them rarely and for short periods.
The difficulty with choosing a renewables-dominated system is that, to ensure gas peaker plants don’t need to run too often, more and more transmission, batteries and pumped hydro storage are required to provide the grid with enough electricity 24/7. When these costs are included, a system with more nuclear and less ‘firming’ infrastructure required by renewables is cheaper.
Isn’t the world abandoning nuclear?
No, many countries currently use nuclear power and dozens more are looking to grow their own nuclear power industries to reap the benefits of cheap, clean and reliable power.
Worldwide, 32 countries currently use nuclear energy in their electricity grids, with 50 countries considering or starting to build a nuclear industry for the first time. Nuclear accounts for about 10% of the world’s energy mix.
This proportion has decreased from around 15-17% in earlier decades, because the growth in nuclear generation has not kept pace with the rapid increase in global energy consumption. This is largely due to increasing regulation following the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents, which drove up reactor build costs. Countries like Japan and Germany closed reactors following the Fukushima accident despite only one related death 7 years later.
However, Japan is now restarting its mothballed reactors and considering building new ones. In Germany, three major parties (two fifths of the parliament) now support restarting decommissioned reactors and building new ones. Last year, more than 20 countries endorsed the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear energy by 2050.
Won’t a nuclear rollout only provide 4% of our energy needs by 2050?
No, even if we only built a minimal 11 GW of nuclear capacity on five sites, this would provide around 20% of our grid’s projected 2050 energy needs.
The 4% figure came from calculations made by a renewables industry group, the Smart Energy Council, that used the wrong energy units, and assumed pumped hydro and batteries would actually generate electricity rather than storing it.