A strange dynamic has developed where smart people think it’s the smart-person position to be pro-nuclear. But these people are confused. Rather, it is the smart-person position to be open to nuclear for Australia, but then to conclude it makes absolutely no sense in practice.

Sadly, this appears lost on the federal opposition, which has decided that its one bold, politically contentious position at the next election will be to replace our fleet of ageing coal-fired power generators with nuclear plants.

Peter Dutton has put nuclear power at the centre of the Coalition’s energy policy.

It claims this is economically sensible. But, as two economists with extensive experience in energy economics and no horse in the race, we can assure you that isn’t the case.

We’re both Australians living in the US where around 20 per cent of electricity is nuclear, and we’re perfectly comfortable with nuclear where it makes economic sense.

A thoughtful person should be able to hold these ideas in their mind simultaneously: nuclear power is a great thing for the world and is generally underutilised, but it would be a massive own-goal for Australia to go down that path today.

To understand why, first some basic economics of electricity generation, using the most conservative figures and assumptions possible.

Nuclear power plants should be built only in places where it makes sense, such as this plant in France.Credit: Bloomberg

Sources of electricity differ in the nature........

© The Age