Respected scientists, energy experts and industry players have backed in the latest official data that shows nuclear energy does not stack up for Australia.
Power planners warn taxpayers will need deep pockets to develop nuclear energy, in the annual generation cost update released on Monday that was slammed by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton as he prepares to release nuclear costings.
Emeritus Professor Ken Baldwin from the Australian National University said solar and wind remained the cheapest form of electricity generation, even when taking into account the additional cost of firming with storage, and the additional transmission costs.
"This cost advantage over nuclear is projected to widen over the coming decades - especially by the earliest date that nuclear could foreseeably be expected to operate in Australia in the late 2030s, given the projected lead time of around 15 years," he said.
For the seventh straight year, renewables were the lowest-cost of any new-build electricity-generating technology, the GenCost 2024-25 Report found.
The cost of batteries recorded the largest annual reduction, with capital costs down by one-fifth. Rooftop solar costs are also coming down.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, eyeing sites in seven regional centres, pledges to have reactors built in 10 years if elected in 2025.
GenCost's "assumptions and the methodology have been disputed before", Mr Dutton told reporters in Melbourne.
Mr Bowen was "wrecking the energy system and that's wrecking the economy, and that's why families are facing food inflation and higher prices when they go to the supermarket," he said.
Nuclear energy generation would be 1.5 to two times more expensive than large-scale solar, according to the analysis by the national science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator.
A one-gigawatt nuclear plant has a price tag of roughly $9 billion, but the bill would double to $18 billion as the first of its kind.
Operational, fuel, and waste costs would also be higher for nuclear, according to Senior Research Fellow Thomas Longden at Western Sydney University.
Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton warned nuclear power would also mean more solar gets switched off.
"You can't argue with facts ... nuclear is the most expensive pathway to replacing coal generation as it closes, which would directly impact Aussie hip pockets, driving energy bills up even higher," he said.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the nation would need even more electricity, as well as making it more renewable and emissions-free, with solar clearly the "most popular".
"We all have more work to do on social licence in the regions to ensure real consultation and real community benefit," he told reporters in Sydney.
Advocates have demanded greater recognition of the potential cost advantages of nuclear's long operating life compared to solar panels and wind turbines, but CSIRO chief energy economist and GenCost lead author Paul Graham said he found none.
"Similar cost savings can be achieved with shorter-lived technologies including renewables, even when accounting for the need to build them twice," Mr Graham said.
Nuclear's capacity factor - referring to how much of a year a reactor could operate at full tilt - remains unaltered at 53-89 per cent based on verifiable data and consideration of Australia's unique electricity generation needs.
Nor would the often-touted United Arab Emirates example of a relatively quick 12-year nuclear construction time-frame be achievable here, the report found, because Australians require consultation.
"The facts are laid out very clearly in the GenCost report, and our government respects the work of CSIRO scientists and researchers and listens to that advice," Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic said.
Australian Conservation Foundation nuclear policy analyst Dave Sweeney said four million households with rooftop solar had already voted with their feet and wallets.
