Baseload power policy looms as the key for Dutton

Tony Abbott’s successors squandered his massive majority, leaving Peter Dutton with the herculean task of limiting the Labor government to one term, taking the Libs from opposition into office (“Starting a long way behind, Dutton is shaping his strategy”, 2/11). It is doable though. Dutton’s budget reply speech was excellent in highlighting his values as well as Labor’s weaknesses, particularly on the cost of living and the absurdity of Labor’s push for 82 per cent renewables by 2030. The push comes without a plan to ensure reliable baseload power. Indeed, as Paul Kelly notes, Dutton is a pragmatist, strategically clear-headed and “will prove superior to Morrison in holding the Liberal base”. With Anthony Albanese’s eviction notice from the Lodge clearly served by Dutton, the next federal election can’t come soon enough.

Mandy Macmillan, Singleton, NSW

Paul Kelly gives a positive appraisal of Peter Dutton’s strategy as leader of the Coalition. The problem with Dutton’s willingness to support renewables, however, is that once you put your hand to the plough there is no turning back. As with roads, transmission lines are expensive, require maintenance, always need extending, are never fully funded by the users, transmit fewer units than other modes, are not functional at times when most needed and are a blight on the landscape. If we instead supported the retention of fossil fuels and removed the nuclear ban, we would be able to economically process what we grow and dig up.

On-site processing is where renewables should be situated. The outcome is less heavy transport, more valuable product, high environmental standards compared with overseas processing, and regional development. If the small nuclear reactors prove to be a game changer when they eventuate, they can plug straight into existing infrastructure and we would not have to trash redundant solar panels, turbines and transmission lines.

Sarah Childs, Gooloogong, NSW

Some writers exhort that climate change is an existential threat, easily solved by a quick transition to renewables and the banishing of fossil fuels.

Others counter that renewables will never fit the bill as they cannot provide baseload and process load, and the scale requirements to transform to solar panels and wind turbines, backed up by batteries made of rare earth minerals, on a worldwide basis, is unachievable. So, for this agnostic writer, where does the truth lie? Surely it lies in compromise, balance and timing. We need all available energy types as the occasion suits.

We can use hydro where water is plentiful, renewables for localised power (for homes and offices) where there is plenty of sun or wind, and continue with fossil fuels for heating, lubrication, asphalting, blast furnaces, trucking, farm vehicles, ships and aeroplanes until something better comes along, such as small-scale nuclear modules, hydrogen and (the holy grail) nuclear fusion. In reality, is there any other answer than a multiplicity of energy sources and sensible adoption as new energy forms come on stream?

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

Judith Sloan tells it like it is (“Hang on to your hat as energy crisis likely to get worse”, 1/11). Cheap renewable energy via wind and solar is an oxymoron, as is Chris Bowen’s energy plan. Renewables, wind and solar need an additional fuel source to supply 24/7 power to the grid, business and consumers. The choices are coal, gas, hydrogen and nuclear power.

Robert Boone, Bomaderry, NSW

I shake my head almost every day at letters and opinion pieces from commentators who, while seemingly articulate and intelligent, continue to believe that renewables are the solution to our present energy predicament rather than the cause of it. Given a large dose of factional magnanimity, this descriptor could even include our present Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

However, with recent evidence of the unpredicted results of renewables technology in Germany, England, California and many other places, it seems this sentiment can best be summarised as the triumph of hope over experience. But aside from hope, I would add that economics, engineering and common sense are valuable commodities also.

K. MacDermott, Binalong, NSW