Seven nuclear sites and two big black holes: Why voters deserve better than this

Dutton has talked in the past about the “plug and play” options of small modular reactors as if they are easy to add to existing transmission networks. In fact, there are no working examples anywhere in the world. One developer, Rolls-Royce, is still in the research phase and a second proponent, NuScale, cancelled its project late last year.

Westinghouse has a deal to build four of its AP300 small modular reactors for Community Nuclear Power in north-east England – but this is an attempt to make the concept work, not proof it can work. The project was announced in February with aims to have the site ready by 2027, so electricity generation begins in the early 2030s.

What kind of nuclear power station does the Coalition want? No policy can be serious if it does not fill this basic gap. On Wednesday, Dutton referred to full-scale power plants like the Westinghouse AP1000, which has a working example in the United States that has been built at exorbitant cost, but he is yet to decide the broad type of design he has in mind.

The secondary questions are obvious. Who would build the power plants? Who would supply the processed fuel? Where would the waste be stored? How would a Coalition government overcome state bans on nuclear energy? How much would it cost to persuade the owners of today’s coal-fired power stations to use their sites for tomorrow’s nuclear power stations?

Labor took a different approach to energy policy before the last election. It unveiled detailed modelling in December 2021 – five months before the election – for its target to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. This included the fateful claim of a $275 household saving, which is yet to be delivered.

The Labor example is proof of the risk in offering detail, not an excuse for dodging that detail. The point is that Labor did the policy work. Dutton is moving earlier than Labor but is not showing voters the same respect.

“This is such a big change that surely it behoves them to offer more details,” says energy expert Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute.

There is a good debate to be had about the future of the energy grid and the best baseload power to complement wind and solar.

Dutton could have done more work on whether small modular reactors might be suitable for Australia, giving voters a broad range of the potential cost. All he did was name seven sites that might, in theory, house something to be decided at a later date.

Dutton may avoid offering details to avoid the pesky political problems they could trigger, but that would only lend weight to a common assumption that his nuclear idea is merely a cynical way to claim action on climate without really acting at all.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.