Victorian parliamentary committee says nuclear power too expensive, too risky

Published by

The Victorian government has shot down any prospects of lifting a prohibition on nuclear power, with a parliamentary committee finding that nuclear power remained cost prohibitive, risky and needing a substantial subsidy to stand any chance of being viable in Australia.

The final report of the Victorian parliamentary inquiry into nuclear prohibition was released on Thursday, declaring that there was no serious case for lifting the current prohibition.

While the committee found that it was too hard to accurately quantify the exact costs of nuclear power in Australia with a ban in place, the inquiry found that there was substantial evidence that the costs were prohibitive and that nuclear power was unlikely to be viable without government subsidy.

“Notwithstanding the ambiguities of the costings, the Committee received substantial evidence that nuclear power is significantly more expensive than other forms of power generation and it is recognised that, currently, nuclear is at the high end of the cost-range across all technologies,” the committee found.

“Without subsidisation a nuclear power industry will remain economically unviable in Australia for now.”

The Victorian Greens said that the committee’s report was further evidence that nuclear power was not still an effective option as a source of energy in Australia.

“There isn’t a business case for nuclear power because the argument has already been lost – years ago,” Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam said. “The debate about nuclear power is a distraction perpetuated by those who cling to a world view that is last century.”

“There is good reason we have a prohibition on nuclear energy. Because everyone already knows it’s a bad idea. Expensive, risky and unnecessary. I hope this is the last time we have to entertain an inquiry into nuclear power. It’s a relic that belongs in the past.”

The committee concluded that there was no good arguments for repealing a prohibition on nuclear power in Australia, saying that any potential advantages presented by nuclear power did not outweigh the known and substantial risks.

“Those who propose a policy shift have not presented any argument, data or proof in support of their position that cannot be nullified by those arguing against. Any advantages are speculative in nature, and do not outweigh the identified and proven risks,” the committee said.

However, the Victorian Liberal opposition submitted a dissenting report, calling for a repeal of the nuclear prohibition. The Liberal party committee members cited testimony made to the inquiry by pro-nuclear advocate Michael Shellenberger, who argued that there was a role for nuclear power in a low emissions energy system.

The Victorian state parliament has maintained a ban on nuclear activities since 1983, which also prohibits uranium mining, nuclear power and storage facilities being established within the state. Even if the state ban was repealed, nuclear activities would largely remain prohibited as a result of federal environmental laws.

The Australian Conservation Foundation welcomed the findings of the inquiry, saying that nuclear power remains unviable and that the current Andrews Labor government was justified in maintaining the prohibition.

“This long-standing protection has served Victoria well and its retention is prudent and positive,” ACF campaigner Dave Sweeney said.

“Nuclear power is high cost and high risk and a distraction from the real energy choices and challenges we face. Our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.”

The latest cost estimates produced by the CSIRO suggest that nuclear power would be substantially more expensive than other options available in Australia, more than five times the cost of wind and solar power, and more than double the cost of renewables firmed by energy storage.

Michael Mazengarb is a climate and energy policy analyst with more than 15 years of professional experience, including as a contributor to Renew Economy. He writes at Tempests and Terawatts.
Michael Mazengarb

Michael Mazengarb is a climate and energy policy analyst with more than 15 years of professional experience, including as a contributor to Renew Economy. He writes at Tempests and Terawatts.

Share
Published by

Recent Posts

Origin Energy drops plan for massive wind project in New England, citing rising costs

Origin Energy has dropped plans to develop a major wind farm intended for 10 kms…

1 October 2026

AGL sees powerful opportunity to host data centres at coal and gas hubs

AGL names Bayswater, Loy Yang and Torrens Island as sites with all the attributes data…

1 October 2026

“It’s made us more wasteful:” Solar and battery homes plug in to a new age of abundant energy

CSIRO study finds households with solar and batteries are enjoying periods of "limitless" electricity, a…

1 October 2026

Another state launches Solar Sharer offer, amid fresh warnings of drawbacks to three hours of free power

State quietly launches its own version of the Solar Sharer offer, giving households the option…

1 October 2026

Nuclear power’s quarter-century of stagnation has no end in sight, and has been overtaken by solar PV

Latest nuclear status report details the glum state of affairs for the far right's favourite…

1 October 2026

Gas network giant buys majority stake in what will be Queensland’s first fossil fuelled peaking plant in a decade

The new 400 MW gas peaking plant will be the first for a decade in…

1 October 2026