Media

Nuclear power would lead to higher energy costs and more carbon pollution. Tim Buckley mentioned the true cost is much higher than claimed, as 90% of construction expenses occur after 2050 and are left out of the $331 billion estimate used in the LNP’s plan. Read more

Nationals leader David Littleproud defended the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan in a speech at the National Press Club, claiming it offers a cheaper and more reliable zero-emissions solution than the government’s renewable-focused strategy. Tim Buckley’s analysis suggests the nuclear plan could cost Australia $4.3 trillion more over 25 years compared to the government’s renewable energy strategy. Read more

Independent think tank Climate Energy Finance says nuclear power leads to permanently higher energy costs and significant carbon pollution. Read more

– China 1QCY2025 electricity statistics. – Battery Energy Storage BESS announcements continue at a rapid speed and scale, with proposals advancing across Australia almost daily. – China’s response to the US trade war Read more

If elected, the Coalition plans to build seven nuclear reactors to replace baseload coal-fired power stations across Australia and rely on more gas-fired generation in the interim. Modelling by Frontier Economics found including nuclear in AEMO’s scenarios for a future energy mix would be up to 44 per cent cheaper. It is the central document being relied upon by the opposition for its key energy and climate policy offering of the 2025 federal election. Read more

A new analysis by Tim Buckley from Climate Energy Finance reveals that a proposed nuclear energy plan in Australia could cost at least $4.3 trillion by 2050. This figure contrasts sharply with the $331 billion estimated by Frontier Economics for the opposition’s broader energy plan. Buckley argues that the original modeling excluded key costs and underestimated economic impacts, leading to flawed comparisons. He emphasizes that Australia risks $3.5 trillion in lost GDP if it follows the lower-growth trajectory assumed. Read more

Climate Energy Finance (CEF) published a report on Thursday examining the economic implications of the nuclear pathway modelled by Frontier Economics for Australia’s energy transition. Frontier concludes its $A331 billion costed nuclear scenario is somehow better than the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan’s (ISP) Step Change scenario cost, which they calculate at $594 billion by bizarrely ignoring the massive cost of the resulting cumulative $3.5 trillion reduction in Australian gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Read more

The CEF report says both the Coalition’s and the Government’s estimates of the price tag of building a nuclear industry in Australia restrict their analyses largely to costs incurred in the energy system itself. Moreover, Frontier Economics’ modelling is “predicated on advocating for an energy pathway (“Progressive Change”) that differs dramatically to the energy pathway (“Step Change”) deemed most likely by the Australian Energy Market Operator’s (AEMO) Integrated System Plan (ISP) and consistently advocated by the Labor Government.” Read more

The CEF analysis exposes damaging flow-on costs to the economy for which the Frontier modelling fails to account. Combined with Frontier’s extreme underestimation of the capital costs of building nuclear reactors, these costs accumulate to $4.3 – 5.2 trillion by 2050, 13-16 times the $331bn price tag for a nuclear Australia assumed by Frontier Economics. Read more

The context: CEF director Tim Buckley said Frontier’s nuclear report is “riddled with shortcomings” which “completely undermine its credibility as a serious energy transition analysis”. What they said: “This is as weak as the opposition leader recently declining to accept the settled climate science because he is ‘not a scientist’,” said Buckley. Read more

Climate Energy Finance founder Tim Buckley said adopting nuclear power would also force Australian industries to rely on coal-powered electricity and gas for longer and could undermine existing investments in renewable energy projects. “This will further erode our manufacturing sector’s competitiveness,” he said. Read more

The analysis in this report is clear: nuclear reactors risk our vital regional manufacturing hubs and the thousands of livelihoods that depend on them. These are risks we don’t have to make. Read more