← Energy Realism

The Nuclear Case

Not faith — arithmetic. Seven reasons the option Australia banned outperforms the one it's spending A$173bn on, on almost every axis that matters. Every figure is sourced, and the two honest catches are stated plainly at the end, because a case that hides its weaknesses isn't a case.

Everyone runs it. We banned it.

About 30 countries run nuclear power for clean, firm electricity — France gets two-thirds of its grid from it. Australia, holding the world's largest uranium reserves, is one of the only advanced economies to outlaw it. The map is the argument.

Fiji — no nuclear powerTanzania — no nuclear powerW. Sahara — no nuclear powerCanada — 13.4% of electricity from nuclearUnited States of America — 18.2% of electricity from nuclearKazakhstan — no nuclear powerUzbekistan — no nuclear powerPapua New Guinea — no nuclear powerIndonesia — no nuclear powerArgentina — 7.4% of electricity from nuclearChile — no nuclear powerDem. Rep. Congo — no nuclear powerSomalia — no nuclear powerKenya — no nuclear powerSudan — no nuclear powerChad — no nuclear powerHaiti — no nuclear powerDominican Rep. — no nuclear powerRussia — 18.1% of electricity from nuclearBahamas — no nuclear powerFalkland Is. — no nuclear powerNorway — no nuclear powerGreenland — no nuclear powerFr. S. Antarctic Lands — no nuclear powerTimor-Leste — no nuclear powerSouth Africa — 3.9% of electricity from nuclearLesotho — no nuclear powerMexico — 4.8% of electricity from nuclearUruguay — no nuclear powerBrazil — 2.3% of electricity from nuclearBolivia — no nuclear powerPeru — no nuclear powerColombia — no nuclear powerPanama — no nuclear powerCosta Rica — no nuclear powerNicaragua — no nuclear powerHonduras — no nuclear powerEl Salvador — no nuclear powerGuatemala — no nuclear powerBelize — no nuclear powerVenezuela — no nuclear powerGuyana — no nuclear powerSuriname — no nuclear powerFrance — 67.3% of electricity from nuclearEcuador — no nuclear powerPuerto Rico — no nuclear powerJamaica — no nuclear powerCuba — no nuclear powerZimbabwe — no nuclear powerBotswana — no nuclear powerNamibia — no nuclear powerSenegal — no nuclear powerMali — no nuclear powerMauritania — no nuclear powerBenin — no nuclear powerNiger — no nuclear powerNigeria — no nuclear powerCameroon — no nuclear powerTogo — no nuclear powerGhana — no nuclear powerCôte d'Ivoire — no nuclear powerGuinea — no nuclear powerGuinea-Bissau — no nuclear powerLiberia — no nuclear powerSierra Leone — no nuclear powerBurkina Faso — no nuclear powerCentral African Rep. — no nuclear powerCongo — no nuclear powerGabon — no nuclear powerEq. Guinea — no nuclear powerZambia — no nuclear powerMalawi — no nuclear powerMozambique — no nuclear powereSwatini — no nuclear powerAngola — no nuclear powerBurundi — no nuclear powerIsrael — no nuclear powerLebanon — no nuclear powerMadagascar — no nuclear powerPalestine — no nuclear powerGambia — no nuclear powerTunisia — no nuclear powerAlgeria — no nuclear powerJordan — no nuclear powerUnited Arab Emirates — no nuclear powerQatar — no nuclear powerKuwait — no nuclear powerIraq — no nuclear powerOman — no nuclear powerVanuatu — no nuclear powerCambodia — no nuclear powerThailand — no nuclear powerLaos — no nuclear powerMyanmar — no nuclear powerVietnam — no nuclear powerNorth Korea — no nuclear powerSouth Korea — 31.7% of electricity from nuclearMongolia — no nuclear powerIndia — 3.3% of electricity from nuclearBangladesh — no nuclear powerBhutan — no nuclear powerNepal — no nuclear powerPakistan — 16.7% of electricity from nuclearAfghanistan — no nuclear powerTajikistan — no nuclear powerKyrgyzstan — no nuclear powerTurkmenistan — no nuclear powerIran — 1.7% of electricity from nuclearSyria — no nuclear powerArmenia — no nuclear powerSweden — 29.1% of electricity from nuclearBelarus — no nuclear powerUkraine — 55% of electricity from nuclearPoland — no nuclear powerAustria — no nuclear powerHungary — 47.1% of electricity from nuclearMoldova — no nuclear powerRomania — 19.8% of electricity from nuclearLithuania — no nuclear powerLatvia — no nuclear powerEstonia — no nuclear powerGermany — no nuclear powerBulgaria — 41.6% of electricity from nuclearGreece — no nuclear powerTurkey — no nuclear powerAlbania — no nuclear powerCroatia — no nuclear powerSwitzerland — 27% of electricity from nuclearLuxembourg — no nuclear powerBelgium — 42.2% of electricity from nuclearNetherlands — 2.8% of electricity from nuclearPortugal — no nuclear powerSpain — 19.9% of electricity from nuclearIreland — no nuclear powerNew Caledonia — no nuclear powerSolomon Is. — no nuclear powerNew Zealand — no nuclear powerAustralia — 0%, nuclear power banned by federal lawSri Lanka — no nuclear powerChina — 4.5% of electricity from nuclearTaiwan — no nuclear powerItaly — no nuclear powerDenmark — no nuclear powerUnited Kingdom — 12.3% of electricity from nuclearIceland — no nuclear powerAzerbaijan — no nuclear powerGeorgia — no nuclear powerPhilippines — no nuclear powerMalaysia — no nuclear powerBrunei — no nuclear powerSlovenia — 35% of electricity from nuclearFinland — 39.1% of electricity from nuclearSlovakia — 60.6% of electricity from nuclearCzechia — 40.2% of electricity from nuclearEritrea — no nuclear powerJapan — 10% of electricity from nuclearParaguay — no nuclear powerYemen — no nuclear powerSaudi Arabia — no nuclear powerAntarctica — no nuclear powerN. Cyprus — no nuclear powerCyprus — no nuclear powerMorocco — no nuclear powerEgypt — no nuclear powerLibya — no nuclear powerEthiopia — no nuclear powerDjibouti — no nuclear powerSomaliland — no nuclear powerUganda — no nuclear powerRwanda — no nuclear powerBosnia and Herz. — no nuclear powerMacedonia — no nuclear powerSerbia — no nuclear powerMontenegro — no nuclear powerKosovo — no nuclear powerTrinidad and Tobago — no nuclear powerS. Sudan — no nuclear power
Australia — banned by law <10% 10–25% 25–45% 45%+ none
~440
power reactors operating in ~30 countries
67%
of France's electricity is nuclear — the world leader
0%
Australia's nuclear share — banned by federal law
#1
Australia holds the world's largest uranium reserves (~28%)

The rollout we never had

Canada built 14.7 GW of CANDU reactors in ~22 years. Pick a year Australia could have started the same thing, and watch what we'd have today — the power, the coal displaced, and the fresh water that baseload reactors make almost for free in their off-peak hours.

19902035

…then by 2050(the net-zero deadline), at Canada's actual CANDU build rate, Australia would have:

36
CANDU reactors
25 GW of always-on power
100%
of the coal fleet
replaced (23 GW)
5,448
TWh generated
cumulative, zero-carbon
311
Sydney Harbours
of desalinated fresh water
The renewable path
~35 GW
of firm backup capacity STILL required — for when the wind drops and the sun sets.
The nuclear path
0 GW
of backup required — nuclear is the baseload. It runs day or night, calm or still.
Fresh water desalinated & fleet built — 2000 to 2050
Desalinated water (Sydney Harbours) Nuclear fleet (GW)

Outcomes shown at 2050 (the net-zero deadline). A counterfactual at Canada's ACTUAL CANDU build rate (~0.7 GW/yr — its real 1971–93 record), capped at a 25 GW Australian fleet. CANDU 6: ~700 MWe net, ~90% capacity factor, ~5-yr build. NB: even if the ban were lifted today, first concrete is ~5–6 years away — so the slider runs to 2035 (a realistic earliest start), and the cost of every year of delay is visible in the gap. Desalination assumes a conservative 10% of output run off-peak at 3.5 kWh/m³ (modern seawater reverse osmosis is 2.5–4). Sources: World Nuclear Association, AtkinsRéalis Enhanced CANDU 6, IAEA, SWRO literature.

What a reactor actually costs

A reactor is ~0.7–1.4 GW; a plant is usually two to four of them. The cost per GW isn't fixed — it's a choice. Build often, like Korea, and it's cheap. Build once and stop, like the West, and it's dear.

CountryDesignMW / reactorCost / GW
South KoreaAPR1400
The world's cheapest builder — ~US$2,300/kW. Living proof nuclear CAN be cheap.
1,400~A$3.5bn
ChinaHualong One
~US$2,500/kW, built on schedule at scale.
1,180~A$3.8bn
UAEAPR1400 ×4 (Barakah)
Korean-built export turnkey: US$32bn for 5.6 GW. A standing-start nation, all four units done in ~12 yr.
1,400~A$5.9bn
CanadaCANDU refurb (Darlington)
C$12.8bn rebuilt 3.5 GW — on budget, early — for +30 yr of life. (Refurbishment, not new-build.)
878~A$4bn
CanadaBWRX-300 SMR
First-of-a-kind SMR at Darlington: C$20.9bn for 1.2 GW (~C$9,180/kW). The FOAK premium, visible.
300~A$8bn
United StatesAP1000 ×2 (Vogtle)
US$35bn outturn for 2.2 GW — the Western first-of-a-kind cautionary tale.
1,117~A$24bn
Australiamodelled (FOAK → fleet)
CSIRO GenCost: a ~120% first-of-a-kind premium that tapers as a fleet is built. The challenge is the standing start, not the technology.
1,100~A$15–25bn → ~A$10bn

Overnight capital cost (excludes interest-during-construction, grid, decommissioning), converted at USD/AUD 0.65 & CAD/AUD 1.1. Korea, China and the UAE build at A$3.5–6bn/GW; the West, building rarely, pays A$24bn+/GW. Australia's number depends entirely on whether it commits to a fleet or builds one and stops.

CANDU or APR1400 — which reactor?

A real trade-off, not an obvious call: Canada's CANDU (the basis proposed in the book) against Korea's APR1400 (the world's cheapest, most-proven builder). For Australia it comes down to sovereignty vs delivery certainty— but the real point is that we've banned both. Either would beat the path we're on.

CANDUEC6 · ~700 MWe
  • ✓ Runs on natural uranium — no enrichment. Australia could fuel its own reactors from its own mines.
  • ✓ Smaller units suit Australia's small, weakly-linked grid (losing 700 MWe is a far easier contingency than 1,400).
  • ✓ High capacity factor — refuels online without shutting down.
  • ✗ Thinner modern supply chain (few recent new builds); heavy-water inventory is a real upfront cost.
Wins on: sovereignty + grid-fit
APR1400Korea · ~1,400 MWe
  • ✓ The best cost & schedule record on earth — ~US$2,300/kW built in Korea.
  • ✓ The Barakah precedent: the UAE, with zero nuclear history, built four of these roughly on budget — the closest thing to what Australia would do.
  • ✓ Economies of scale — large units, low cost per MWh.
  • ✗ Needs enriched fuel (import dependence); a single 1,400 MWe unit is a big contingency for the NEM.
Wins on: cost + delivery certainty
The honest verdict

For getting a fleet built without a blowout — APR1400. Korea + Barakah is the strongest de-risking of a standing-start build that exists, and de-risking the standing start is everything. For sovereignty + grid-fit — CANDU: natural-uranium self-sufficiency, for the nation with the most uranium and no enrichment. The call:APR1400 to build and prove the first fleet fast, with CANDU's fuel-sovereignty edge real enough to be the better long game. The book backing CANDU isn't wrong — it's optimising for sovereignty over delivery certainty.

Sources: World Nuclear Association reactor profiles, IAEA, KHNP / Barakah, AtkinsRéalis Enhanced CANDU 6; Korea ~US$2,300/kW (IEA/NEA Projected Costs).

Seven reasons, in the numbers

01

It is firm — it builds its own backup

A reactor runs at ~90% capacity factor, on demand, day or night, wind or none. It supplies the firm capacity a grid actually needs — the ~74 GW dispatchable fleet that wind & solar require AEMO to build separately. Firmness isn't a bonus; it's the product.

02

It needs a fraction of the materials

Per unit of lifetime energy, nuclear uses ~12 tonnes of critical minerals per TWh — against ~124 for solar and ~130 for onshore wind. Less mining, less shipping, less manufacturing, less to replace. The whole resource counter on the homepage shrinks by an order of magnitude.

03

It breaks the dependence on China

The renewable build runs through Chinese refineries and factories — polysilicon ~95%, wafers ~97%, battery graphite ~90%, rare-earth magnets ~85–94%. A nuclear fleet's supply chain (steel, concrete, fuel, Western components) is far less China-exposed — the same strategic logic Unprepared applies to defence.

04

It is the lowest-carbon option there is

Lifecycle ~12 gCO₂/kWh — at or below wind, below solar, and ~40–70× below coal. A nuclear-based system lands around ~20 g/kWh because its high capacity factor needs little storage and no gas backup.

05

It lasts a lifetime, not a decade

Reactors run 60 years, with licence extensions pushing 80. Solar panels and wind turbines are re-procured every ~25–30 years — so a renewable grid is rebuilt two to three times over a reactor's life, each rebuild a fresh round of mining and waste.

06

Its waste is tiny and contained

A 60-year fleet produces ~60 kt of spent fuel — fully inventoried, engineered-for, and 2–3 orders of magnitude smaller by mass than the millions of tonnes of landfilled panels and blades a renewable grid leaves behind.

07

Australia already trusts reactors — at sea

Under AUKUS, Australia is buying nuclear-powered submarines to berth in its harbours and crew with its sailors — while a law makes it illegal to use the same proven technology to boil water for the grid. The contradiction is the policy, not the physics.

The two honest catches

Cost is contested. CSIRO GenCost models firmed renewables as cheaper per MWh than Australian first-of-a-kind nuclear (it assumes a ~120% FOAK premium and a ~59% load-following capacity factor); advocates dispute both. We show the cost as a range, never a single triumphant number. And lead time is real. After 15+ years lifting the ban and building a regulator, workforce and supply chain, first power is ~2040at the earliest. Renewables deploy now. That is the strongest argument against — and we'd rather you hear it from us.

Why GenCost gets the cost wrong →The full counterfactual →Run the numbers yourself →