The analysis also projects an additional 1 billion tonnes of emissions from the industrial and transport sectors, attributed to a greater reliance on fossil fuels during the transition to nuclear.

Furthermore, the modelling indicates that this transition to nuclear power would hinder Australia's ability to meet its climate targets for 2030 and the bipartisan net zero emissions target by 2050.

A recent assessment indicates that the Coalition's nuclear energy plan could lead to an increase of 657 million tonnes of emissions in the electricity grid from 2023 to 2050, and potentially up to 1.8 billion tonnes under a nuclear scenario.

This modelling suggests that Australian greenhouse gas emissions could rise by over 2 billion tonnes under the Coalition's proposed nuclear energy strategy.

Matt Kean, chairman of the Climate Change Authority, has described this situation as a 'nuclear carbon emission bomb,' warning that extending fossil fuel usage while shifting to nuclear would significantly elevate emissions.

Dutton has proposed the construction of seven nuclear power stations, estimated to cost around $331 billion by 2050, which has ignited debate regarding the environmental consequences.

The analysis employs various scenarios from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) to demonstrate how emissions would vary between the Coalition's nuclear plan and a renewable energy pathway.

The cumulative emissions impact of the Coalition's nuclear pathway could exceed 2 billion tonnes by 2050, contrasting sharply with the government's renewable energy approach.

In contrast, Labor's energy strategy emphasizes gas-fired power stations as a backup to support renewable energy, diverging from the Coalition's nuclear-centric focus.

In response to concerns about nuclear costs, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton cited a Frontier Economics report suggesting that nuclear power could be developed at 44% lower costs compared to a renewables-only strategy promoted by Labor.