The Opposition's costings for its nuclear power plan released on December 13 2025 contain no references to the size and type of reactors needed and, hence, no estimate of the millions of dollars each one could cost taxpayers.
The report, by Frontier Economics, also contains no mention of the individual sites chosen for nuclear generators nor even an assessment of whether one or more small modular reactors (SMRs) might be built at each site.
It does not refer to the likelihood of massive construction cost overruns despite the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) finding: "SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years."
Nor is there any reference to the costs involved in projects taking years longer than estimated to complete, an example being a South Carolina project delayed by more than seven years, with costs more than doubling.
The Opposition selected Frontier Economics to perform the costings despite the company not including nuclear power in its list of expertise and, according to its website, only producing one previous report on the topic - also for the Opposition.
Whereas IEEFA has produced nearly 30 reports on nuclear issues.
The Liberal Party might have done better to select this "non-partisan", "non-profit making" organisation for its study.
IEEFA found: "Significant issues with Australian nuclear proposal," and reported: "Research by IEEFA calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons including cost, timing, compatibility with renewables, and other financial questions."
But the Dutton report makes no attempt to counter IEEFA findings such as a construction time of 12 years for SMRs instead of three or four years as scheduled, and 10 years or longer for large reactors.
And it fails to dispute the IEEFA verdict:
So, it doesn’t look like nuclear could come online until the 2040s.
The report, by Frontier Economics, also contains no mention of the individual sites chosen for nuclear generators nor even an assessment of whether one or more small modular reactors (SMRs) might be built at each site.
It does not refer to the likelihood of massive construction cost overruns despite the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) finding: "SMRs in operation or under construction cost three to seven times more than originally planned. Proposed SMRs in the US have also already seen cost estimates blow out by between two and four times in recent years."
Nor is there any reference to the costs involved in projects taking years longer than estimated to complete, an example being a South Carolina project delayed by more than seven years, with costs more than doubling.
The Opposition selected Frontier Economics to perform the costings despite the company not including nuclear power in its list of expertise and, according to its website, only producing one previous report on the topic - also for the Opposition.
Whereas IEEFA has produced nearly 30 reports on nuclear issues.
The Liberal Party might have done better to select this "non-partisan", "non-profit making" organisation for its study.
IEEFA found: "Significant issues with Australian nuclear proposal," and reported: "Research by IEEFA calls into question whether nuclear makes financial sense for Australia, for a multitude of reasons including cost, timing, compatibility with renewables, and other financial questions."
But the Dutton report makes no attempt to counter IEEFA findings such as a construction time of 12 years for SMRs instead of three or four years as scheduled, and 10 years or longer for large reactors.
And it fails to dispute the IEEFA verdict:
So, it doesn’t look like nuclear could come online until the 2040s.
