Coalition brings merits of nuclear power to energy debate

Well done to the Coalition for suggesting a nuclear policy (“Rival power plays ignite the energy wars”, 16/2). Whether you accept climate change is upon us, or feel the science is wrong, or belong to a class of agnostics like me, we do need to ensure our future energy needs are met. The renewables fantasy leaves us exposed during cloudy and windless days. Batteries as back-up will consume incredible volumes of rare earth minerals and will last only for short periods. Solar panels will use up valuable farmland. Rewiring Australia will cost buckets and damage pristine environments. Industry will close without reliable and cheap baseload power.

The left side of politics needs to grow up and abandon its 1970s aversion to nuclear power. Nuclear power plants have been around for 60 years in Western countries and many more are under construction. Let the energy debate begin.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT

The events of the past week should serve as a wake-up call for Australia. First, the collapse of the grid in Victoria during a summer storm, leaving 530,000 premises without power. Where were the renewables? Then came the warning that the nickel sector in Western Australia is at risk of closure. Exporters of commodities will always be price takers, not price setters. Push up the cost of those commodities too high with higher energy and labour costs, and you make the industry uncompetitive when faced with cheaper commodities produced by low-cost countries. That is what we are now seeing. Australia should be on notice.

Mary Hackshaw, Northwood, Vic

There is one clear distinction between nuclear reactors and wind turbines/solar panels: all nuclear reactors built to achieve 2035 targets still will be available to meet 2050 net-zero targets. All wind turbines and solar panels currently being built for a 2035 target will be scrap metal before 2050.

If we think the current expenditures on renewables is excessive, it has to be remembered we will have to start with a brand-new program for 2050.

R. Watson, Sunnybank Hills, Qld

Has the wild weather blown our brains out of our collective heads in the past week? Victoria has had a significant power outage because a storm knocked over transmission lines from a coal-fired power station.

Of course, it would not matter how the power station worked, whether fossil-fuelled, renewables-fed or fairy-dusted – if there are no transmission lines, the power can’t go anywhere. However, senior business leaders and politicians have somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that the power outage is the fault of renewable energy.

Does this make any sense? It was a network problem, and if climate change continues to cause dramatic weather events, then surely having a more diversified power grid and not being reliant on a few vulnerable power sources must be a good thing.

Karen Lamb, Geelong, Vic

​​Nuclear proponents desperate to knock solar and wind electrical power fail to mention that nuclear power will not prevent extreme winds from knocking down power pylons and lines as they occasionally do.

Nuclear isn’t nimble and is dependent on the grid. Its contribution to “resilience” is a populist thought bubble without consideration of cost.

Jim Allen, Panorama, SA

Finally some sanity: the Coalition is committed to a reliable, clean, baseload power option that also has the advantage of a tiny footprint compared with others in the new energy paradigm.

It understands that the transition away from hydrocarbons will leave a gaping hole, a hole that can be filled by another proven technology that has the advantage of being emissions-free. It is hard to reason why Australia is bucking the trend of other advanced economies that embrace nuclear as part of the solution.

It cannot be that we are smarter than them; it can only be ideologically motivated. The Labor government is certain to run a “not in my backyard” scare campaign in the run-up to the election but there is another certainty. In the next 10 years the Coalition will form government. That will be the moment that nuclear is on the table and, with it, the comfort that this country’s long-term energy requirement will be secured.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA