Building nuclear power generation could take more than a decade and cost hundreds of billions of dollars, says an inquiry report already being criticised as partisan.
A parliamentary inquiry into nuclear energy on Tuesday released its interim report into the viability of introducing nuclear power generation in Australia, focusing on how long it would take to deploy and the cost to build it.
The committee heard from multiple stakeholders who provided estimates that building nuclear power could range from a decade up to 50 years from Australia's starting point.
The time frames were based on the deployment of nuclear reactors internationally, given the nation has no nuclear power construction or generation experience.
A majority of submitted time frames align with the 15 years estimated by the CSIRO's GenCost report into the costs of energy generation, the inquiry report stated.
"There would be significant challenges associated with establishing a nuclear power generation sector in Australia before the mid-2040s, at the earliest," committee chair and Labor MP Dan Repacholi said.
It could take up to a decade to lift a ban on nuclear generation and start up a new nuclear power industry, with many stakeholders referring to a "frequent history of delays" internationally.
Small modular reactions touted as a potential option for Australia are currently not commercially viable, he said.
"(Nuclear) cannot be deployed in time to support Australia's critical energy transition targets and climate commitments, or to assist the coal workforce and communities in their transition away from the coal industry," the Labor MP said.
Costs in building the nuclear power generation varied greatly across submissions to the committee, ranging up to $600 billion.
The report referred to a submission by consulting firm SMR Nuclear Technology that listed the capital costs of recent nuclear builds internationally since 2000, including $4323/kW in South Korea to $20,883 in the UK, with an average cost of $9574/kW.
"While the cost of deploying renewables is continuing to reduce, (experts) have not seen an equivalent decrease in the cost of nuclear power," Mr Repacholi said.
He also said the committee was told nuclear power could cost more for consumers to use, citing international experiences of frequent significant cost overruns for nuclear power projects.
The report also highlighted the private sector's lack of interest in investing in nuclear power.
"While the committee is aware it does not yet have a full picture of the costs beyond deployment - such as ongoing costs, waste management, decommissioning and emergency management, it is clear ... that the deployment of nuclear power generation in the Australian context is currently not a viable investment of taxpayer money."
But the Labor-dominated committee's report has been rejected and criticised by its three Liberal-National members who claimed the inquiry had been a "politically motivated attempt" to discredit the coalition's nuclear energy plan.
Deputy chair and LNP MP Ted O'Brien said the report incorrectly assumed capital costs to build a nuclear industry would be five times more expensive than the opposition's $120 billion estimate, and that it ignored nuclear's role in being several instances of the fastest decarbonisations of energy grids.
"(The government) has resorted to untruths to promote its renewables-only plan and disparage the coalition's plan for a balanced energy mix including nuclear," Mr O'Brien said.
