NewsBite

Coalition ‘common sense’ on energy tops ALP ideology

As opposition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien writes, it’s telling that the Labor government and its “go-tos” for advice on energy matters, the CSIRO and AEMO, have not sought to properly challenge the Frontier Economics costings of the Coalition’s energy plan that includes nuclear power (“Labor betting our economy on green energy pipedream”, 2/1).

O’Brien debunks Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ assertion that a bigger electricity system will translate to bigger growth, when in reality the take-up of power by industry will largely depend on the cost to secure it. It is the efficiency of power delivery that matters, not its volume. To that point, only nuclear power plants match coal-fired power plants for energy density.

Footprints are small and transmission poles and wires currently exist. In essence, the Coalition’s energy cocktail is grounded in common sense. By contrast Labor’s eggs-in-one basket approach appears grounded in ideology.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

Ted O’Brien’s article in The Australian says it all; Chris Bowen’s “pie in the sky” renewables plan will only add to the list of poor prognoses, caused by the destruction to our environment that will inevitably occur, if forever chemicals leach from decaying wind turbines, solar panels and batteries over the next 15 to 25 years. But has Labor thought this far ahead?

Deirdre Graham, Moss Vale, NSW

We have the wrong people trying to plan the energy system. When sanity ruled in the days of reliable coal power, engineers in cardigans assessed future growth in demand and planned to meet it.

It was not a political process but an engineering one. Today, it has become the province of those who know very little about the subject and who try to justify the delusions of those who pay them. Their opponents just argue, and the result is the chaos we now see.

David Bidstrup, Plympton Park, SA

For those who believe renewable energy cannot sustain the electricity grid, I think my own personal case shows you can. We’ve gone all electric – solar panels, heat pump, induction cooktop, home battery and EV – and now use no power whatever from the grid. Even on an overcast day, we’ve been producing enough power to run our house, charge our car and refill our battery – all at the same time! As of 10am on Thursday, we started exporting power into the grid.

True, we’ve had to invest a large amount of capital to get to this point, but the pay-off over the next 10 years will be great, both in terms of money and the environment. The point is, if we can do it, there is no reason why the nation as a whole can’t do the same. It’s just a matter of forward thinking and wise investment.

Ken Enderby, Concord, NSW

With a federal election imminent, it is likely that nuclear energy will play an important role in the campaign. But I do not think nuclear energy is a realistic possibility for Australia. It is expensive and it will take a long time to set up. Australia has virtually no experience in this industry; it cannot be phased down.

Accidents, as with any industrial activity, have been rife throughout the nuclear industry. Just take Three Mile Island, 1979, Chernobyl, 1986, and Fukushima, 2011. We also need to consider that the safe storage of waste (free from terrorists and natural disasters) is a problem. We have plenty of sun, wind, biomass and hydro, as well as possible sea wave use, as carbon-based fuel is phased out.

Ken Moore, Chapel Hill, Qld

There’s been a lot of misinformation spread about the nuclear debate. The cost of nuclear installation and generation is vastly more expensive than renewables. Nuclear power plants need cooling water for their steam turbines. Excluding possibly the proposed Port Augusta site, this water would all be coming from precious inland water resources, notably also essential for the agriculture industry.

Renewables do not need any cooling water. Nuclear power plants are proposed to be located on the current sites of the retiring/retired coal-fired plants to possibly avoid additional transmission costs. From AEMO for renewables: the “additional transmission projects are projected to be $16bn. These investment costs are expected to be recouped by saving consumers $18.5bn in avoided energy costs”.

Steve Carter, Cleveland, Qld

Add your comment to this story

To join the conversation, please Don't have an account? Register

Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout

Original URL: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/letters/coalition-common-sense-on-energy-tops-alp-ideology/news-story/96a9c07d467d7cd6d8443ab3263e56c9