Labor renewables push driving nation on road to ruin

The commentary by the ever reliable Robert Gottliebsen (“Our $650bn renewables hit”, 19/11) makes a vital point about cost.

The report relates that from financial details now available from cost assessor Frontier Economics, Australia’s renewables program presents us with a likely $650bn outlay in 2050, a potential national disaster and one that could potentially destroy the economies of both NSW and Victoria because of the consequential power price rises.

The report attributes this looming disaster to the fact that Energy Minister Chris Bowen and the state ministers did not start with a budget. Instead they set out their aims with no idea of the cost and commenced construction without a proper cost plan.

It is imperative that Gottliebsen’s disclosures be answered fully by the ministers and others in authority before the nation is taken further down the road to potential ruin.

Meanwhile, further execution of the renewables program should be put on hold until a reliable and proper assessment of its present progress and cost to date are made and published, along with related budget and detailed plan for its completion.

The best course is to adopt Gottliebsen’s suggestion that we may need to start again because renewables have a limited life.

The existing situation appears to be a complete shambles and must not be allowed to descend into further fiscal disorder and power generation chaos.

Ian Dunlop, Hawks Nest, NSW

Despite the claims by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, reinforced by the obedient reports of the CSIRO and others, that their deep dive into renewables is both cost-effective and achievable, it must be becoming obvious to even those with one eye closed that not only will their efforts make little or no change to the world’s weather, but will force the cost of electricity to go beyond the reach of millions of Australians.

It may force our power-reliant industries to go elsewhere. And this when they are planning to invest billions of our dollars in their Future Made in Australia campaign. What is rarely mentioned, but will eventually bite us all on the backside, is where on earth do they plan to bury the millions and millions of old solar panels and the gigantic rusting turbines when they have to be replaced? Can the CSIRO tell us that, perhaps?

If this is the best the brains of the Labor Party and their advisers can come up with, as their hero Gough Whitlam said, “It’s time”.

Don Stallman, Byron Bay, NSW

To reach net zero by 2050 and keep afloat a modern, growing economy, we will need an ample supply of affordable dispatchable power. Wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro cannot possibly supply the needs of such an economy and it is important to note those built around now will be finished by around 2050. They will have been a very costly waste of time, effort and money.

The thing to note is, escalating debt from the renewables push, plus all the debt it causes to business and households, is already striking Australia very hard indeed. Our true debt is also measured in credit cards required to pay household bills.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is correct to make nuclear energy his policy because this makes common sense, but he needs to be braver and bolder, and, like Donald Trump, show no fear to naysayers, who only weaken a nation.

We need a strong leader. We need a few large-scale nuclear power stations that can run the whole economy, so by the time these are up and running, they will replace all the worn-out batteries, wind and solar panels and coal-fired power stations.

Graham Thomas, Kadina, SA

The ongoing energy debate stems from the flawed implementation of renewable energy projects, characterised by poor engineering practices (“Albanese is off message on reality of energy transition”, Editorial, 19/11).

Allowing an intermittent energy supply into a system that requires consistent, dispatchable electricity was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

Renewable energy sources should have been required to deliver dispatchable electricity, necessitating integration with flexible sources such as gas. This approach would have provided a clearer understanding of the actual costs and allowed for more confident allocation of subsidies.

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld