Opposition leader Peter Dutton today announced that the Coalition would if elected build nuclear reactors at Port Augusta in the Upper Spencer Gulf, Loy Yang in Victoria, Callide in Queensland, Collie in Western Australia, and Tarong, Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW.

All except Port Augusta are sites of existing coal-fired power stations. Port Augusta’s Northern Power Station was decommissioned in 2015, along with the Leigh Creek coal mine which fuelled it.

“We want to utilise the existing assets that we’ve got, and the poles and wires that are used at the moment on the coal-fired power station sites… to distribute the energy generated from the latest generation nuclear reactors,” Dutton said.

“We have the ability to do that in a way that renewables can’t.

“It will mean that on those end-of-life coal-fired power station sites, we can utilise the existing distribution networks.”

Dutton would not reveal the cost of his nuclear policy but said he would have more to say “in due course”.

Nationals leader David Littleproud – whose Queensland electorate is home to the Callide site – said it was “a proud day”.

“Under the Coalition, we will change not only the culture of this country but leave a legacy for this country – the legacy of a change of culture,” he said.

“That’s what the leadership that Peter Dutton and David Littleproud intend to bring to the Australian people. We’re going to give them hope and when all seems lost, it’s time for strength and leadership.”

But the nuclear policy was met with hostility from the federal and state Labor governments.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it overlooked Australia’s renewable energy potential.

“It’ll be a taxpayer funded nuclear fantasy,” he said.

“Here in Australia, we have the best solar resources in the world.

“This makes no economic sense, as well as leaving us in a position of energy insecurity because of the time that it will take to roll out a nuclear reactor.”

South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said nuclear had “an important role to play in the global energy mix as we pursue a decarbonised future”, but it did not stack up economically.

“We know from report after report that in the Australia context [nuclear] will make power more expensive, so why on earth would we pursue it?” he said.

“Today, Peter Dutton has announced that he intends to build seven nuclear power stations in Australia, but isn’t telling the Australian people how much it’s going to cost. That means two things: either Peter Dutton knows how much it’s going to cost and he’s refusing to tell people or he’s making a massive policy commitment without knowing how much it’s going to cost.

“If Peter Dutton does know how much those seven nuclear power stations are going to cost, doesn’t he have an obligation to tell the Australian people how much that is?”

SA Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis also weighed in, posting on social media that the “Port Augusta site is not vacant”.

“It is already being repurposed as a green cement and concrete plant and minerals export port. The transmission lines are not idle. They are used every day by wind and solar generators around Port Augusta and in the Mid North,” he wrote.

“The myth that a nuclear reactor could just plug into the old Port Augusta coal power transmission lines is not true.”

Hallett Group is developing a $125 million green cement project at the former Northern Power Station site.

The project is backed by $20 million in federal government funding and Hallett Group said the plan would cut Australia’s annual carbon dioxide emissions initially by 300,000 tonnes, growing to one million tonnes as it expands.

The company will use existing technology to manufacture supplementary materials that can replace more than 50 per cent of traditional high-emission clinker-based cement.

Last July, Hallett Group announced it had partnered with Korea’s largest energy company Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP). Under the partnership, KHNP will power Hallett Group’s green cement project with hydrogen energy.

KHNP and Elecseed – which has offices in Brisbane and Korea – will build a 6MW hydrogen electrolyser at the site of the former power station.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said her party would try to block the Coalition’s nuclear plans in the Senate.

“We will fight Dutton’s toxic plan in the Senate and we will fight them in the seat of Sturt,” she said.

“The scientific and economic evidence from CSIRO and other experts is crystal clear: clean energy is cheaper, faster, safer and more reliable.”

Greens MLC Robert Simms said he was “appalled by this latest announcement”.

“We really need a commission of inquiry into the nuclear industry like a hole in the head here in South Australia,” he said.

“In terms of Port Augusta being earmarked for a nuclear site, it’s totally inappropriate. And we don’t want to see South Australia become the nation’s nuclear waste dump.

“I think a lot of South Australians will be really disappointed that this is going to trash our image as a clean green state.”

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen said the policy was “the Liberal Party’s solution to the challenges of transitioning our energy mix in this country”.

“They want to bring more expensive, more risky, more toxic energy solutions to the people of this country,” she said.

“We won’t stand for that.”

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said he would not wind his state’s legislative ban on nuclear power.

“I don’t know how they’re gonna get around it, I think that’s a question for the leader of the opposition federally,” he said.

“But can I just say two things about nuclear power: firstly, it costs a lot of money; secondly, it takes a lot of time and we don’t have a day to wait.

“And I don’t think NSW consumers can pay anymore when it comes to energy prices.”

Queensland Premier Steven Miles said nuclear power was “four to six times more expensive” than alternatives.

“So think about that. That means your electricity bill could go up four to six times to fund these nuclear reactors that the LNP wants to build in Queensland,” Miles said.

“And that is not to mention how future generations – my kids, your kids – will need to manage dangerous radioactive nuclear waste, forever. That’s what that plan means.”

Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers called the nuclear policy “economic insanity”.

“Nuclear takes longer, it costs more and it will squander Australia’s unique combination of advantages,” he said.

“It is the worst combination of economic and ideological stupidity, it is economically irrational, it is fiscally irresponsible and it means if it’s implemented, Australia would fail to grab these vast economic and industrial opportunities with a net-zero transformation in the most effective way.”

Federal Finance Minister Katy Gallagher called the policy “laughable”.

“They’ve got some plan, which is going to cost more money, delay any progress on addressing climate change and the stability of our energy grid, I think is just laughable,” she said.

“It simply doesn’t stack up.

Smart Energy Council Wayne Smith said the Coalition was essentially extending the life of coal power in Australia.

“All you get is higher power bills,” he said.

“Coal firepower stations will continue to probably about 2040 at the taxpayers’ expense – that’s the reality of what’s being announced today.”

A recent CSIRO report said that the bill to power Australia with nuclear energy would be roughly twice as much as renewables.

The report concluded the technology’s costs were broadly similar to gas and coal-fired generation and would be at least 50 per cent more expensive than large-scale wind and solar power backed by “firming” technologies like batteries.

Federal Member for Grey Rowan Ramsey, whose electorate covers Port Augusta, said nuclear power could support the state’s energy mix alongside renewables.

“Last night in South Australia around about 20 per cent of our energy was coming from renewables and pretty much the batteries were all flat because we’ve had calm, cool, overcast weather,” he said.

“Where do you find the other 75 per cent of your electricity from? There needs to be a quantum shift in the way that we fashion this pursuit of net zero.

“We’re not going to get there under the current regime.”

– With AAP