They claim they can build their first reactor by 2035 and complete all ten by 2050 but:

• No expert says that this is feasible and all say that it will be early 2040's before our first nuclear reactor comes online and mid-2050's for all ten. 

Here are some questions our local MP, Darren Chester, needs to answer:

Please explain the project timetable that will deliver our first reactor in 10 years.

How will this replace the 22Gw of coal-fired generation that will all be retired by the mid-2030s?

Recent projects in advanced Western nations end up costing $15-25 billion per Gigawatt, leading to:

• Construction costs of $210-350 billion for 14 Gw of nuclear output.

Coal-fired power to be extended for 15 years until nuclear power is online, at a cost of $2-3 billion for each of 12 coal-fired power stations, leading to:

• Coal-fired refurbishment costs of $24-36 billion; paid by the operator.....

• .....but recovered from consumers over 15 years with added profit/risk margin so that.....

• .....the final cost to consumers would be $35-55 billion.

Electricity from these coal-fired power stations will be twice as costly as renewables, requiring Government subsidies of $4-6 billion pa to them so they are able to compete, leading to:

• Coal operating subsidies of $60-90 billion over 15 years.

• Total cost of nuclear implementation of 7-10Gw = $189-$376 billion!

 What estimates does the Coalition have for the implementation costs of nuclear and coal?

 What estimates does the Coalition have for the costs of subsidies needed for nuclear and coal?

Both CSIRO [2] and Lazard [4] show the wholesale cost of nuclear electricity at 2-3 times that from renewables supported by firming capacity, with the cost trends for nuclear going up whilst those for renewables are going down. 

How much operating subsidy will nuclear plants require to compete in an open market? 

Will the Government intervene in the market to advantage nuclear and restrict renewables?

They promise cheaper electricity than renewables because they claim their build cost is cheaper than Labour's, although they are delivering much less capacity at a higher cost per kilowatt built.

That's like saying my petrol car will be cheaper to run than an EV because it costs less to  buy.

• They offer no analysis of the likely wholesale cost of nuclear electricity.

• Expert analysis says nuclear electricity costs $50-100 more per megawatt hour than other forms.

What analysis have you done on the likely wholesale price of nuclear electricity?​

How do you reconcile your "will be cheaper" claim in the face of global experiences?​​

They promise thousands of high-paying jobs from nuclear construction and operation but have offered no timeline for such activities in the Latrobe Valley.

• They can't start building here until 2-3 years (of demolition) after Loy Yang closes in 2035.

• A reactor at Loy Yang  canot possibly be operational until around 2045.

• Renewable energy already has thousands of such jobs in the region - wind, solar, batteries, etc.

When do you see construction jobs starting and how many will be required?

How do you see these jobs being filled we have a major shortage of builders and engineers?

When do you see operations jobs starting and how many will be required?

They claim nuclear will address our emissions reductions (ER) targets so we can step back from current commitments for 10-15 years and let nuclear solve it from in the 2040's. However:

• Global opinion is adamant that urgent reductions are needed within the next 5-10 years.

• The European Union has introduced tariffs on imports from nations with weak ER plans,

• The electricity sector is under a third of our emissions [6].

• Extending the life of coal-fired power stations will add 2.0 billion tonnes over 15 years [7].

Do you have an emissions reduction plan for the next 10-15 years?

Have you calculated how we will meet our international emissions reduction obligations?

Have you examined the economic impact of walking away from our ER commitments?

They claim they existing coal-fired power stations cooling water can be used to run nuclear, but:

• Nuclear requires up to twice as much water as coal does.

• Coal's water is going to be used for 20-25 years to fit the brown coal pits to make them safe.

• River flows in the valley are in long-term decline.

• Agricultural and population growth requires increased supply but the climate is changing.

Please explain where nuclear's cooling water supply will come from?

Can you rule out taking water from town and agricultural reservoirs?

They claim nuclear can deliver 38% of our electricity by 2050 with renewables delivering 54% but:

• We are already at 46% renewables now and will be close to 100% by late 2030's.​

• Without massive subsidies, nuclear cannot operate unless running at 100% capacity.

How will nuclear fit into a grid that will be running at over 95% renewables by 2035?

How will you cap renewable energy growth to leave room for nuclear generation in the 2040's? 

Nuclear reactors of this size produce 30-100 tonnes of radioactive waste which has to be stored on-site for 8-10 years before it cools enough to be tranported, leading to:

• 300-1000 tonnes of radioactive waste held at Loy Yang at any one time, located on top of an earthquake fault line and less than 10 km from central Traralgon.

• Potentially 60,000 tonnes if they don't build a secure waste storage facility.

What is your plan for how nuclear waste will be safely stored?

What costings do you have to build such a waste storage facility?

They have chosen a much lower growth scenario for the next 25 years in Australia with:

• 32% less demand for electricity than AEMO's Optimal Development Path (ODP) scenario.

• Home solar capped at 48% and home batteries at 15% of the ODP.

• 9m fewer electric vehicles (that's >300GW of consumer battery capacity denied to the grid).

• No offshore wind of any form.

What is your reason for predicting this is our most likely future, in a time of "electrify everything"?

What happens to your cost estimates if, in fact, we experience the ODP trajectory?

They claim nuclear is needed for reliable base-load but modeling over the last 3-4 years [8] shows we can reliably run the grid on close to 100% renewable energy. All it takes is: 

• Solar, wind and hydro resources at currently predicted 2035-36 levels, plus

• Battery storage equal to national demand (currently ~25 GW), plus

• Peaking capacity (gas, etc) for 1-2% of demand during rare renewnable enrgy droughts.

How will you "adjust" a fully-functional, 100% renewable energy-based grid when nuclear arrives?

They say they can re-use existing coal-fired power station sites as they are retired, saving the need for new transmission lines and infrastructure but:

• Their plan relies on extending use of those very same coal sites for 10-15 years.

• Their plan relies on 54% from renewable energy.

• Existing transmission lines are already over-loaded with existing renewables output.

• They need coal to continue into the 2040's so how does re-use work in this scenario?

• Coal-fired power stations reliability is constantly falling.

How can you simultanously run a coal plant and re-use the site to build nuclear?

What estimates do you have for the required reliability levels of continued coal-fired power?

They say they can deploy a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) by 2035 but ATSE [5] says:

• there are no licensed designs, or constructed or operating SMRs in any OECD countries;

• the reliability of publicly available information on non-OECD designs is questionable;

• projected costs and performance could only be accurately demonstrated once full-scale prototype SMRs are built;

• it is possible that several prototype SMRs may be licenced, commissioned and built in OECD countries by the mid-2030s;

• Commercial releases could commence by the late 2030s to mid-2040s, with a mature market likely emerging during the mid to late 2040s;

• the least risky option would be to procure them after several designs have been commercialised and successfully operated in other OECD countries.

The only OECD SMR project (Nuscale UAMPS) was cancelled in 2023 after the intended customers balked at the rising cost of electricity from it.​ Why does the Coalition believe it can commission SMRs by 2035?

1. Claim: "we won't meet our emissions targets so no point continuing with them". Reality: Our 2030 target is 40% reduction on 2005 levels. Current initiatives will deliver 37% and planned ones will deliver 41%. Why do they claim this is impossible?

2. Claim: "renewables are wrecking the economy". Reality: renewables are making the price of electricity much lower than it would have been using new-build or life-extended coal-fired power stations. Where is the evidence you rely upon to support this claim?

3. Claim: "need 28,000km of transmission lines for renewables". Reality: AEMO's ISP [1] states "10,000 km of new transmission would be needed by 2050". 

4. Claim: "[renewables] rollout will cost $1.2-1.5 trillion". Reality: AEMO's ISP [1] states "The annualised capital cost of all utility-scale generation, storage, firming and transmission infrastructure in the ODP has a present value of $122 billion (Step Change scenario to 2050)". This is the total cost to get total capacity to 300Gw by 2050.​

5. Claim: yyyyyyyy. Reality:

6. Claim: yyyyyyyy. Reality:​

Here are some reality- and science-based reports we use to support the above. Each has a short executive summary which should give you a good introduction to their subject.

1. Australia's Integrated System Plan is a whole-of-system plan that provides an integrated roadmap for the efficient development of the National Electricity Market (NEM) over the next 20 years and beyond via several scenarios.

2. CSIRO's GenCost report analyses the true cost ranges of all energy forms in Australia to 2050.

3. World Nuclear Industry Status report is an independent, detailed assessment ofthe state of nuclear operation, costs and directions.

4. Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy Version report provides comparative energy prices analysis for various generation, storage and hydrogen technologies on a $/MWh basis, including sensitivities for tax subsidies, fuel prices, carbon pricing and the cost of capital.

5. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering Small Modular Reactors report summarises the state of technical development and Australian context for small modular nuclear reactors in 2024.

6. Australia’s emissions projections 2023 report (DCCEW) provides the latest estimates of Australia’s future greenhouse gas emissions to 2035. They show how Australia is tracking against its 2030 emissions reduction commitments by examining the potential impacts of policies and measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Solutions for Climate Australia's Nuclear Disaster report analyzes the impact of the Coalition's nuclear energy proposal around SMRs.

8. A near 100 per cent renewable grid is readily achievable and affordable (Renew Economy) shows how weekly modeling of our actual demand versus ramped-up wind , hydro and solar generation can run the grid close to 100% of the time.