Global solutions point way to the best possible energy mix

Although the independent costing of the Coalition’s energy plan indicates a lower cost than Labor’s predominantly renewables-focused estimate, Australians will simply consider the best possible and believable energy mix as best placed to deliver energy reliably and at lower prices.

Realistically, that will include a combination of nuclear, renewables, coal and gas rather than an “all eggs in one basket” renew­ables approach. Disconcertingly, the uncontrolled trajectory the Albanese government has the country on now is doomed to failure, imposing escalating power costs on to consumers.

Jeffrey Trudgian, Victoria Park, WA

Your editorial is right to call for a long-term approach to Australia’s energy system (“Whole-of-system approach needed on power reform”, 17/12).

The net-zero year, 2050, is several terms of government away. But can Australia have faith in the government to undertake what you call for? Arguably, a price on carbon would have had us further down the track but the Clean Energy Act 2011 introduced by the Gillard government was repealed three years later by the Abbott government with no effective replacement. Successive governments were pro-coal and gas with little interest in renewables or nuclear power for that matter. In that period, Australians largely took matters into their own hands, installing four million rooftop solar systems and, more recently, home batteries.

We lead the home energy revolution. Any government that makes it financially easier for Australians to install their own systems will be well-received at the next election because it will reduce their cost of living.

Karen Campbell, Geelong, Vic

When 32 other nations and even the delegates at COP29 recognise the need for nuclear power in the global energy mix, Climate Change and Energy Minister Bowen Chris makes a laughing-stock of us (“Anti-nuclear Bowen is stuck in a fantasy world of his own”, 17/12).

Jim Chalmers’ attack on Peter Dutton’s proposal shows that the Albanese government stands behind this fantasy. This delusion even includes slamming the door on our participation in international research in the field. As Judith Sloan shows, CSIRO reports ignore system-wide costs such as the unproductive proliferation of transmission lines for intermittent power and the relative life spans of nuclear and renewable infrastructure.

Even the government’s apparent conversion to the need for gas to firm up unreliable power sources is unconvincing, considering its ongoing crusade against all fossil fuels. Sloan insists on the economic and strategic sense that nuclear energy makes, and the dire implications for Australia of ignoring this reality.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic

The Coalition will make a grave mistake if it focuses exclusively on the cost advantages of nuclear power generation. Peter Dutton should be prepared to cite the environmental argument for nuclear power.

If the true environmental costs of reaching net zero via the renewables route were to be honestly assess­ed, the dollar cost comparisons between nuclear and renewables might well be seen as irrelevant.

The environmental degradation attendant on the construction of thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines; the placement (including land clearing, access roads and massive footings) of many thousands of unsightly, bird-butchering wind turbines; and littering the landscape with millions of solar panels, all of which will ultimately require safe disposal, will be incalculable but guaranteed to be horrendous.

If the nuclear option is ultim­ately cheaper, well and good, but even if it is not we should be prepared as a nation to wear the extra cost in the interests of protecting the environment.

The manic pursuit of a renew­ables fantasy is shaping as a case of destroying too much of the village to save it.

Terry Birchley, Bundaberg, Qld

Why follow other nations just because they have nuclear power? Problems with nuclear, old and new, abound.

Why not learn from those? We already have more than 40 per cent of our electricity being generated by renewables and it’s only 2024. Nuclear would be a taxpayer’s time bomb.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic