Feasibility check: Strategy of powering Aussie aluminium production firms with nuclear energy nothing but a theory?

A recent study has found that three out of Australia’s four aluminium smelters face a serious risk of closure under proposed shifts in energy policy, a development that could shake the entire nation’s economy and threaten thousands of jobs. Why such a speculation? The federal opposition has pledged to construct seven nuclear power plants across five states if elected, arguing that their modelled plan could be 44 per cent cheaper than Labor’s renewable roadmap.

This AI-generated image is for representational purposes only

So, what could unfold if the Coalition forms government and pushes this nuclear initiative forward?

Australia’s aluminium smelters are among the highest industrial energy users in the country. The Tomago smelter in New South Wales alone accounts for 12 per cent of the state’s total electricity use. As decarbonisation pressures mount, the industry is searching for dependable, low-emission baseload power. In theory, nuclear fits this requirement. However, Australia has yet to demonstrate any practical application. Rough estimates suggest that powering all four major aluminium smelters with nuclear energy would require around 3 gigawatts of dedicated capacity. That could mean:

• Three large-scale nuclear reactors, each generating 1 GW, or
• Six to eight Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with capacities ranging from 300 to 500 megawatts.

Currently, coal-fired power stations such as Vales Point B, Gladstone, Yallourn, Bayswater, and Eraring still supply nearly half of the electricity to the national grid. However, these ageing plants are inefficient, polluting, and on track to retire by 2038 at the latest.

Even under optimal conditions, nuclear reactors in Australia would take a minimum of 15 years to become operational, according to projections from the CSIRO, the country’s top science agency. As of now, there hasn’t even been a formal construction start. Should work commence immediately, reactors would still take so long to complete that existing coal plants would shut down well before nuclear units are ready to take over.

Globally, nuclear construction has a long history of blowing past deadlines and budgets. Take the UK’s Hinkley Point C as a case in point—it’s now projected to cost three times more than originally promised (USD 90 billion) and arrive 14 years later than planned (2031 instead of 2017). Similarly, in the United States, the NuScale SMR project in Idaho began with expectations of delivering 720 MW at a cost of USD 3.6 billion. Three years later, the cost had ballooned to USD 9.3 billion, with output downgrading to 496 MW. The project was ultimately abandoned in 2023.