Credit: Cathy Wilcox
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@theage.com.au. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.
Peter Dutton’s plan to use nuclear power to replace coal plants hinges around the first nuclear plant coming online in the late 2030s, with use of coal plants being strung out until then. However, under his plan coal will be needed at least until the last of the seven nuclear plants is on line. It is most likely to be way beyond 2050, maybe late 2060s or 2070s, quite optimistically allowing five years between nuclear plants coming online, and yet Dutton’s comparative costs against Labor’s plans are truncated at 2050. What we need is an outline implementation plan that includes all seven plants, not just the first, and the capital costs involved to keep coal stations running for what will be multiple times their initial design lives.
Lawrence Gebert, Blackburn
Technology is moving us in new directions
Throughout my engineering career (now retired) I’ve been involved in power generation. Nuclear reactors are just another component in the process. I’ve got nothing against nuclear power as such, but let’s keep it in perspective. Whether coal, gas or nuclear all require a large plant to generate heat to produce steam to drive turbines etc to generate electricity. For various reasons, such a plant is located away from users of electricity which require large scale (and expensive) poles and wires. Strategically not good for Australia (it’s a big place and we are prone to bushfires). There is also a loss of the power generated when transmitted over long distances.
Moving on from steam, modern technologies use an energy source to produce electricity directly (eg, sun, wind, tidal flows, waves, etc). Most times they are called renewables. A feature of these technologies (particularly sun and wind) is that setup and running costs are a fraction of the cost of the old, traditional technology. This is so if transmission costs can be minimised. This can be so if generation of power was kept close to where it is to be used. The advent of battery development makes this more possible. Consider power hubs for suburbs with power generated off rooftops with hub sizes and locations planned to optimise distribution security and costs. Remote locations could be provided with the ability to be independent. Manufacturing units would be expected to provide their own power (not unique, in the ’60s, my employer, an aluminium company – smelter, rolling mills, etc had its own powerhouse). Planning would be required to manage networks of hubs. Such networks would not require the high voltages currently produced and could be similar to the networks required for cell phones, for example.
The steam age is ending. To be considering nuclear is a furphy and a distraction from the direction technological development is taking us.
Bert Bland, Boronia
Trust the vision and knowledge of scientists
From the moment that the issues of global warming and energy generation coalesced into a discussion about nuclear energy, led by Peter Dutton, it became apparent that there was little room for uncertainty, or curiosity. Opinion was politicised immediately and probably driven by some bad historical events involving military applications (Hiroshima), and poorly managed civil events (Chernobyl), and malevolence (Rainbow Warrior). We are now moving into costings which are based on modelling and projections, a bit like pricing other civil infrastructure, such as: How much will it cost to build a road to Melbourne Airport? When I was a schoolboy we were taught that we would run out of oil, based on known reserves. Photovoltaic cells seemed a good idea, a bit fanciful at the time but suitable for curriculum content in physics, and it took a long while to become a reality in the form of rooftop solar panels. It was the vision of scientists who made the modern world what it is today, and gave us televisions and mobile phones. The beancounters and number-crunchers are unlikely to get us far, and we should learn to understand the limitations of modelling and predictions, especially about costs.
Clyde Ronan, Yarrawonga
THE FORUM
Undemocracy
Nick Bryant (Comment, 18/12) says of Donald Trump’s win, ″People may not like this outcome but it was a democratic outcome.″ If we take this to mean that he offered himself to the people, told them exactly what he was going to do, and still got their votes, it does sound democratic. But there is something fundamentally undemocratic about electing to president a man who is contemptuous of the very system under which he was elected, even if due process was followed.
Claude Miller, Castlemaine
Reef madness
Indeed the Scott Reef in my home state of Western Australia is stunning (″Great Scott, this reef is stunning″, 15/12). It’s a unique example of the colourful array of life on Earth.
That the Western Australian government has rejected community appeals and subsequently approved Woodside’s gas hub that will damage our climate and environments like the Scott Reef until 2070 is devastating (″Woodside gets approval for 50-year extension″, 13/12).
By extension, this decision further threatens already endangered species like the dusky sea snake, sea turtles and whales.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek promised no new extinctions on her watch. She now faces a choice: stand with most Western Australians who want to see nature protected, or follow in the steps of WA’s environment minister and surrender to Woodside, allowing the destruction to continue.
Sonya Elek, Padbury, WA
My wish? Protect nature
Like your correspondent (Letters, 14/12), all I want for Christmas is a minister for the environment who is for the environment. According to recent YouGov polling, 86 per cent of Australians want stronger laws to protect nature. Why then do we allow the salmon farming industry to continue sucking the oxygen and life out of the endangered Maugean skate in Tasmania? (″Albanese in pledge on salmon farming″, Sunday Age, 15/12.)
Similarly, why can the gas industry continue pumping pollution into the atmosphere and threaten endangered dusky sea snakes, green sea turtles and mantra rays in WA until 2070? I just want nature to be protected for posterity. Is it too much to ask for this wish, shared by the vast majority of Australians, to come true?
Amy Hiller, Kew
Needless demolition
The architectural merit of Melbourne’s replacement public housing towers (″Architects release more details over new towers’ design″, 16/12) really is a third-order question.
The first question is, do all 44 towers need to be demolished? They were built at different times with different materials and some are in much better condition than others. Building experts including those engaged by Homes Victoria say many of the towers are structurally sound and have another 50 years in them. Their demolition in quick succession will be enormously environmentally destructive. But the state government will not release the evaluations.
The second question is, why is such replacement housing that is needed not built first? There is ample space on most estates at a distance from the towers, and ″surplus″ public land elsewhere. Instead of the enormous social destruction that comes from communities being dispersed, tenants of those towers that do need to be demolished could move together directly into the new buildings. As Rory Hyde from the Faculty of Architecture points out (″New towers a lot of effort to get to where you started″, 5/12), the government’s plans involve a lot of energy and a lot of displacement for some pretty questionable outcomes.
Dr Kate Shaw, School of Geography,
University of Melbourne
Just a cog in the machine
The editorial ″Tim Pallas’ legacy is stained with red ink″ (18/12) makes some sweeping assertions re the Big Build and other projects. Pallas may well have opposed many of the planned projects based on his financial projections, but was perhaps overridden by cabinet and in particular by the then premier. In his farewell statement he has accepted the responsibility for the financial position (which demonstrates the person he is), for where the state now finds itself, but Pallas was but a cog in the machine, and the responsibility should not be sheeted home to him alone, but shared by all who decided that the Big Build projects should proceed.
Bruce MacKenzie, South Kingsville
See Pallas in context
There has been much written about Tim Pallas’ legacy. Victoria is now the most indebted state in Australia. As the costs of infrastructure projects balloon out Victoria is taking on more debt at high interest rates. Victoria is now struggling to fund basic services. High state taxes and charges will have to rise in Victoria’s budget. According to the Business Council of Australia, in 2024, Victoria was the most expensive state to do business in Australia. Some businesses will relocate. Unemployment will rise.
Before we write more derogatory comments about Pallas’ performance, we should see it in context. Pallas was part of a cabinet team. At the time, big-ticket infrastructure projects were popular with voters. Borrowing for them occurred when it was cheaper, since interest rates were low. No one could have predicted the extra debt associated with the COVID pandemic. Labor has been ideologically loath to sell off too many public assets to pay back debt. Now the government has no choice, but to do this.
It is a pity there is so much infighting in the Coalition, and they can’t get their act together. They need to persuade voters that they are a credible alternative government, otherwise Victorians will get more of the same.
Geoff Black, Frankston
Can new Kennett step up?
The last time we had a treasurer as inept as Tim Pallas was during the Cain/Kirner governments of the late 1980s and early ’90s when Victoria was an economic basket case. Jeff Kennett’s election in 1992 saw harsh but necessary measures introduced which saw an immediate improvement in the state’s finances and a restoration of its AAA rating. Given the massive budget blowouts that will be the Pallas legacy, who will be the new Kennett to restore our budget bottom line?
Greg Hardy, Upper Ferntree Gully
Our own time of dying
Once again, euthanasia is in the headlines (“Denied access to euthanasia, eight take their own lives”, 18/12). Age readers may remember Cheryl Barassi’s attempt to die by suicide and her making her case public in an attempt to have the law on assisted dying changed. One should not need to have a terminal disease, nor have a life expectancy of six months, to qualify for voluntary assisted dying. An individual should have the right to die at a time of their choosing, not have to wait until they are sick or experiencing intolerable suffering.
Elizabeth Sprigg, Glen Iris
Retirees, do more
Ross Gittins (Comment, 18/12) reminds us ″that most people retire on some combination of super and the age pension″, which is another way of saying that taxes levied on the younger working generation are being transferred to the older retired generation.
Traditional, yes: but unsustainable at a time of changing demographics of people living longer and having smaller families – and devoid of intergenerational equity.
Retirees should do more to meet their post-retirement costs and not rely on government welfare. It is ludicrous that a couple can have a million dollars in assets (excluding their home) and still get a part pension.
Maurice Critchley,
Mangrove Mountain, NSW
Falcons’ city peril
As a volunteer wildlife rescuer, I have collected two peregrine falcons hatched on the ledge at 367 Collins Street (″Floored falcon soars again after skyscraper rescue, rehab″, 18/12). One was alive – a young bird stranded on a Flinders Street balcony (December 2021). The other died a few weeks ago atop a nearby building.
The sad story underpinning these incidents is that habitat loss in rural and regional areas has forced peregrine falcons into cities, where dangers are ever-present.
Debbie Lustig, Elsternwick
The right to protest
It is already an offence for anyone to ″with unlawful intent – (a) be disguised or have a blackened face; or (b) have an article of disguise in his or her custody or possession″.
So why does the government think there’s a need for new legislation to criminalise the wearing of masks at peaceful protests?
If protesters with masks, even if only in their pockets, have any unlawful intent, it’s already covered and police can arrest them (″Backlash over plan to ban masks at protests″, 18/12). But without unlawful intent, there is currently no crime and that’s the way it should remain, for people exercising their peaceful right of protest.
Lawrie Bradly, Surrey Hills
Unchain this bill
In 1908, the Australian suffragist from Adelaide, Muriel Matters, chained herself to the metal grille of the Ladies’ Gallery in the House of Commons, Westminster.
This action was highly effective in promoting the cause of women’s suffrage at a time when other protest actions by suffragist groups involved arson and bombings.
Obviously, Muriel’s method of non-violent protest was far preferable to the latter violent actions.
This reasoning still holds true today; therefore the criminalising of using locks and chains in protest action is ill-advised.
Richard Connolly,
Glen Waverley
Credit: Matt Golding
AND ANOTHER THING
Politics
Dan Andrews, Jacinta Allan and Tim Pallas, Victoria is forever in your debt.
Ron Mather, Melbourne
I imagine in 50 years, Tim Pallas will be blamed for failing to spend enough, particularly on public transport.
Bruce Dudon, Woodend
Anthony Albanese should call an election now so that people can say an emphatic no to Peter Dutton’s fantasies.
Reg Murray, Glen Iris
Was that a cloud of hot air wafting over federal parliament as Peter Dutton and his energy spokesman Ted O’Brien announced the Coalition’s nuclear reactor costings?
Eric Palm, Gympie, Qld
I cannot see anything in the proposed protest laws that would prevent the firebombing of a place of religious worship.
Graeme Gardner, Reservoir
Furthermore
One of the biggest problems we have is the lack of online accountability. If people really believe what they have to say is valid and factual let them put their name to it.
Louise Angelides, Mount Eliza
Jacinta Allan said a permit system for protests wouldn’t work. Read some unions wouldn’t like it.
David Cayzer, Clifton Hill
If protesters are there because they passionately believe in a cause, not just to stir up trouble, they should be proud to show their faces.
Marie Nash, Balwyn
Finally
As we move into an electoral campaigning period federally, may I please ask the political aspirants, whether they be party aligned or independent, to post proof of their assertions together with their assertion when they make public pronouncements either through the news media or on the various social platforms.
Noel Mavric,
Moonlight Flat