Peter Dutton's nuclear policy is a risky path forward for Australia

The Coalition's proposal is part of its broader energy policy, which Mr Dutton claims will provide a stable power supply and cheaper energy. However, experts, like the CSIRO, argue that this policy is unaffordable and expensive, costing billions more than renewable alternatives; it claims nuclear power in Australia would be at least 50 per cent more expensive than solar and wind.

The Gladstone Regional Council, which sits in one of the electorates Mr Dutton says would have a nuclear plant if he is elected, strongly disapproves of the Liberal and National Party plans. Councillor Kahn Goodluck emphasised the council's commitment to transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy. He said locals categorically reject the need for "expensive and hazardous" nuclear energy. "Australia's energy future is not radioactive," the councillor said.

Economists have voiced concerns, spotlighting the economic impracticality of the Coalition's nuclear ambitions. They argue that as Mr Dutton acknowledges the necessity of large-scale public investment to reduce emissions, the high cost and untested nature of technologies, like small modular reactors, make solar and wind farms better options. Economists like University of Queensland Professor John Quiggin highlight the potential economic benefits of renewable energy. Prof Quiggin cautions that pursuing nuclear energy could lead to prolonged delays and significantly higher energy bills. That's a risk that Australia can ill afford.

Australia currently has no nuclear power industry, meaning that building nuclear reactors would be an extensive and costly process, likely taking at least 20 years and costing significantly more than renewable alternatives. Under Mr Dutton's plans, taxpayers like you would pay that bill. Critics argue that this approach could leave Australia with little to show for its efforts over two decades while exacerbating power price increases and risking power shortages as coal plants are phased out.

The fear of nuclear reactors in local communities is palpable.

I am yet to hear from an Australian community that unanimously wants a nuclear reactor nearby. Only a minority of people would want the associated risks of transporting nuclear waste through their regions.

Tasmania stands as a beacon of renewable energy success in Australia. With a history spanning over a century in hydroelectric power, Tasmania was the first state to achieve 100 per cent renewable energy. This success story should inspire confidence in Australia's potential for renewable energy in the future.

Peter Dutton's ambition to build two nuclear power stations by 2037, with more to follow, should be met with scepticism. Remember when the Coalition was in government? It couldn't successfully build the commuter car parks it promised. Now, we are to believe it could pull off a significant project like building seven nuclear reactors. Critics rightly question the Coalition's plans' feasibility and economic rationale.

When questioned, Mr Dutton provides little detail on how his nuclear plan would benefit Australians and give us cheaper power in the next five years.

The refrain from the recent Voice to Parliament campaign comes to mind.

If you don't know, vote no.

Craig Thomson is editor of The Examiner