85% of nuclear experts agree: 𝗧𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆 𝗻𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗴𝘆, 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗱𝗼𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀. In the Australian Nuclear Association member survey, highly experienced nuclear professionals were asked about the best approach for Australia.

Our 2025 survey of professionals with an actual background in nuclear science and technology shows that those who are informed on the topic have different expectations than those who are not.

In the Australian Nuclear Association member survey, highly experienced nuclear professionals were asked about the cost of nuclear energy compared to other clean energy sources in the Australian energy mix... www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/informed-exp...

In 2025, the Australian Nuclear Association surveyed its members, who are highly experienced nuclear professionals, to gauge expert opinion on nuclear energy deployment in Australia. The results highlight that the main barriers are political and cultural, not technical or economic.

MEDIA RELEASE: 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮 What do 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴 think? We surveyed informed professionals: people with nuclear training, engineering and science backgrounds, and experience.

“𝘐 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦" It’s a real concern that many people have. In this clip, ANA member Vahishta Bhasin, explains how nuclear waste is managed, stored, and handled under strict controls.

𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩. 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆.

Other countries have done it. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘰𝘰. Here, ANA member Helen Cook explains why we're in a great position to begin.

And it’s no different than how Australia has handled coal plants for decades.

𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳? Here, John Harries explains how nuclear stacks up in terms of water use, and why the comparison to other energy sources matters.

“𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳...” Really? The UAE had no previous nuclear industry, and yet it built four nuclear reactors on time and on budget. In this video, ANA member Hasliza Omar highlights what the UAE proves.

Nuclear energy is an 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, not a loss. Because of the return on investment, it’s 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨-𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦.

Judging by the public conversation in Australia, the main argument is to ban a technology because it is assumed to be too expensive. Is this the right way to approach energy policy?

𝘋𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘣𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦? Mark Ho, President of the Australian Nuclear Association, speaks to this puzzling aspect of our energy policy.

“Isn’t nuclear too expensive?” Not if we use standardised designs, repeat construction, and license pre-approved reactors just like other countries have done. This isn’t about nuclear being costly. It’s about how you manage the project.

Nuclear’s upfront costs can be high. That’s just the nature of the FOAK factor. Long-term? It delivers in a big way. ANA member Dr Richard Garrett explains that principle in this video.

It’s a fair question. The answer is: 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼. Australia doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. If we choose to embrace nuclear energy, we can draw on decades of global experience to manage waste safely and responsibly.

𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘈𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦?

Find out more at www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclear-qa/

“𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦?” It’s one of the first questions people ask when nuclear power comes up. It’s a good one. In this video, Shakila Fernando, a member of the Australian Nuclear Association, explains how nuclear waste is handled today and why it’s not a big barrier.

Safe. Reliable. Proven. Nuclear power has one of the lowest fatality rates of any energy source. It is lower than coal, gas, and petrol. It’s not just safe, it’s one of the safest.

𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳. Right now, Australia is having one of its most important energy conversations in decades. And nuclear is at the centre. The wave of commentary we've seen is not all informed by the facts on the ground.