Size a clean-energy build — renewables vs nuclear, live
Energy Realism
a sister site of Unprepared
10 TWh/yr250 TWh/yr
Wind + solar + storage
Capital cost (overnight)
A$90–150bn
contested — shown as a range
Raw material
12.0 Mt
of which ~8.4 Mt processed/made in China
Firm capacity
needs separate firming
~5–21% of nameplate counts at peak
Lifecycle CO₂
40 g/kWh
≈ 2.0 Mt/yr — both ~10–40× cleaner than coal
Build speed
2–4 (fast)
fast to deploy
Asset life
25 yr
then re-procured (fresh mining)
End-of-life waste
1500 kt
huge by mass, mostly landfilled
Nuclear
Capital cost (overnight)
A$65–110bn
contested — shown as a range
Raw material
1.5 Mt
of which ~0.2 Mt processed/made in China
Firm capacity
✓ inherently firm
runs on demand
Lifecycle CO₂
12 g/kWh
≈ 0.6 Mt/yr — both ~10–40× cleaner than coal
Build speed
10–17 + ~15 yr lead
the honest catch — slow
Asset life
60 yr
before major rebuild
End-of-life waste
5 kt
tiny, contained, hazardous

Drag the slider to size a clean-energy build, then compare the two ways to deliver it. Per delivered TWh, the headline cost is contested and shown as a range — but material tonnage, China-dependence, firmness, asset life and end-of-life waste are not close. The honest counterweight: renewables build far faster, and the nuclear ban means its clock starts at ~2040.

Source: unpreparedaustralia.com/energyrealism — sourced & human-verified