Nuclear Power Plans...?

Despite common misconceptions, nuclear energy is safe and remains one of the most carbon-efficient energy sources we have. I’m far from being anti-nuclear—in fact, I grew up in a country where 70% of electricity is generated from nuclear power. For over a decade, I’ve closely followed the work of Jean-Marc Jancovici, whose insights continue to shape my perspective on sustainable energy solutions.... However, I also keep a close watch on the ticking clock of our decarbonisation deadline. And sorry Mr. Dutton, thanks to decades of climate denialism by your very own party, your nuclear plan is too little, too late.

Cost per gigawatt of energy produced

A detailed analysis by the Smart Energy Council estimates that building the seven nuclear reactors proposed would cost taxpayers between $116 billion and $600 billion, while contributing only 3.7% of Australia’s energy mix by 2050. These figures are supported by CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). Of course, we could debate the credibility of our scientists—but I’ll pass. For the record, I do believe the Earth is round.

That might be acceptable if we had no other options. But Australia should be leading the charge in the energy transition with solar, wind, and hydro. According to the Smart Energy Council, the same investment could achieve 82% renewable energy by 2030, including the cost of building the necessary transmission infrastructure.

Once again - distracting the debate on decarbonisation

If we’re serious about decarbonisation, we should also look at your plans on transport (19% of emissions) and agriculture (15%). There are plenty of lower-tech, cost-effective solutions to address these sectors. By focusing the debate on nuclear, we risk sweeping other critical issues under the rug and obscuring the gaps in your decarbonisation plans.

It’s important to also state that nuclear power is currently illegal at the federal level, as well as in several states, including NSW, QLD, and VIC. According to Leonard Quong, the Head of Australia Research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Australia would need to establish a range of frameworks and standards before any reactors could be built, which would significantly slow down the process and increase costs.

This isn't the first time the Coalition has proposed ideas to prolong coal energy. Not long ago, a piece of coal was brought into Parliament House, making Australia a laughingstock on the global stage for years. Let’s not repeat that mistake, I love Australia, it has become my home country and I'd like to be proud to speak about it with my family and friends in France.

One might wonder if the nuclear power plan is yet another tactic to keep investing in coal-fired power stations, which still supply half of Australia's electricity. We know these coal-fired plants are outdated and are expected to close by 2038 at the latest—long before a single watt of nuclear energy could be introduced to the grid, according to CSIRO. The IPCC is clear: it recommends early retirement of coal power plants, especially those that are inefficient or nearing the end of their operational life - not their prolongation. Given your skepticism about CSIRO findings, do you also consider the IPCC to be unreliable?

Discarding science in favour of market- or money-driven advice...

Last but not least, since the Coalition refuses to listen to our scientists, I can't help but wonder who they are listening to — Frontier, here we go again. These are the same folks, funded by big corporations like Google, Meta, and McKinsey, who use a model inspired by how the pharmaceutical industry brings vaccines to market. They promote technologies like direct air capture (and don’t even get me started on that!), which, despite wasting billions of taxpayer dollars, have yet to demonstrate viability. Meanwhile, the money flows directly from our pockets into the hands of start-up shareholders!

The proposed Nuclear Power plan depends on extending the role of coal and gas in the energy mix, which will delay the development of renewables, cost Australians more, and result in higher emissions over the next 25 years, with the well-known dangerous consequences for our climate. Climate scientists tell us that the key issue in tackling climate change isn't just the end goal — it's the journey. What matters is the cumulative emissions year after year, as carbon continues to be released into the atmosphere (if you're not sure what that means, join a Climate Fresk Australia workshop in 2025). But then again, why believe the scientists when you can turn to Frontier!  

I know this post will likely spark all sorts of comments, but I believe in democratic debate and freedom of speech. Everyone deserves to be educated on what these big plans are really about and how they will impact us—both in the short term and for the future of our children. In my view, the Nuclear Power Plan is yet another attempt to uphold the liberal myth of indefinite growth in a world of finite resources, all while pretending to care. It’s another way to cling to our addiction to abundant energy, all the while continuing to extract from and deplete the ecosystems that sustain life on Earth.  

Don’t let yourselves be fooled. If you believe we need to decarbonise, take the time to fact-check what you’ve heard, do your own research, and don’t hesitate to engage in public debate. There’s a wealth of collective intelligence out there—Australia is home to incredible scientists and engineers who can help us tackle the climate crisis more effectively. Don’t let money and greed dominate the conversation.