Climate Club shows Bowen must consider nuclear energy option

Climate Club shows Bowen must consider nuclear energy option

Reading Judith Sloan’s excellent article (“Bowen’s plan A is a shambles, it’s time to consider a plan B”, 18/7), it raises the question of who it is the government is trying to please. Clearly neither the massively expensive and risk-ridden energy plan nor, as Chris Bowen puts it, being invited to be a member of the “prestigious” Climate Club are really in the best interests of the Australian public. A public already “under the pump”, to quote the Treasurer, with already high energy prices, destined to get worse. So is being an international champion of climate all that important? I would suggest not, and unless a plan B quickly emerges the voting public will think the same. On energy and the voice, this government is playing with fire and needs to change course on both and immediately put domestic economic issues at the top of the agenda. It’s far more important being a local champion than a fading international star.

Ian Murray, Cremorne Pt, NSW

Judith Sloan makes some excellent points in her article on energy policy. However, even if Australia adopts nuclear power (as she recommends), coal will be required for some time. The first nuclear plant is at least a decade off, and even then it may take another two decades before nuclear power can replace coal. Given that some existing coal-fired plants are creaking with age, new plants will be needed – notably high-efficiency, low-emissions plants, which are much more efficient and much less emissions-intensive than existing coal-fired plants. Natural gas is the only other alternative for reliable electricity, but it is more expensive than coal and, in any case, is in short supply in the eastern states. Is Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen willing to push for the addition of new coal-fired plants? And if not, what will he do to ensure reliable electricity? More wind and solar farms plus batteries? In this case, in the eloquent words of the film The Castle, tell him he’s dreaming.

Brian Wawn, Hawthorn, Vic

Judith Sloan eviscerates Chris Bowen’s renewables strategy, highlighting developments overseas in nuclear energy for power generation and contrasting it with experience gained from offshore wind energy. Small modular nuclear reactors are now a technological solution with a capital cost of $5bn per gigawatt for a system that generates electricity 24/7. Contrast that with Britain’s latest offshore wind farm at Hornsea, off the Yorkshire coast, which required a similar upfront cost per unit power but last year supplied electricity at only 33 per cent of capacity – a figure that may cool the ardour of industries dependent on reliable power supply. Australia recently changed policy to acquire AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines for purposes of regional security. How long must it take for us to do likewise and adopt nuclear power stations in the name of energy security?

Michael Asten, Hawthorn, Vic

Debating the voice

One of the key reasons quoted in the pamphlet supporting the Yes case in the voice referendum is “the time is now”. I don’t see any substantive argument in support of this. Recently up to three-quarters of Australians said in a poll they would not be confident of explaining the voice and how it would operate. Until Anthony Albanese provides enough detail about the voice to enable voters to make an informed choice, the referendum should be postponed. I wish the Prime Minister could explain why he is so reluctant to provide full details to the Australian public. Doesn’t he trust the everyday Aussie with this important information?

Adrian Hassett, Vermont, Vic

Our Constitution rightly gives recognition to our British heritage. Such recognition manifests itself by giving the Crown a voice, via the Governor-General, in our governance. Similarly, it is right to give recognition to our Aboriginal heritage by way of a voice, via the proposed voice, in our governance. Enlightened contemporary thinking is that our government should not impose its view on matters affecting Aboriginal people. Rather, it should seek and act on the reasonable views of the affected Aboriginal people. The Uluru Statement from the Heart and the referendum provide the equitable pathway to give effect to such enlightened thinking. It will be uniting to have our beloved King Charles sign off on this historic constitutional blending of our British and Aboriginal heritage.

Keith Banfield, Mitcham, SA

As The Australian’s editorial on Tuesday contends (“Voice debate is made more difficult by new land laws”, 18/7), the West Australian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act makes the prospects of a voice less tenable than hitherto. Moreover, the release of the pamphlets for the Yes and No cases has simply increased divisions in the community and its confusion over the essential issues. The lack of detail provided throughout the public debate has largely contributed to this situation.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW