Leaders must come clean over energy policy costs

It’s good that Peter Dutton is providing more information about the Coalition’s nuclear proposal. But he cannot expect an easy election and must detail a credible plan for government (“Dutton cannot expect easy ride”, 23/9). However, in addition to the electricity sector, usually considered low-hanging fruit, Dutton and his spokesman for climate change and energy, Ted O’Brien, must explain to Australians how they plan to reduce emissions in other sectors, such as agriculture and transport. Since the last election there appears to have been little work done on developing a genuine and comprehensive energy policy.

John Godfrey, Cape Paterson, Vic

Labor demands to know the cost of Coalition plans for nuclear energy, in a plight of its own insecurity. Such hypocrisy, when we will never know the billions Labor has poured and will keep pouring into short-term, intermittent, failing renewables.

Apart from the loss in industry and agriculture, and the effect on cost of living, the subsidies Labor has thrown down the gurgler and continues to do so, in a misguided pursuit of failed ideology, would bring prosperity back to our struggling country.

Mary-Anne Higgins, Rose Park, SA

It is interesting Peter Dutton is still refusing to divulge the cost of his nuclear power plans (“Dutton coy on nuclear plan costs,” 23/9). The reason is clear. If voters got wind of what the true financial impact would be, they would run a hundred miles from the idea. The lessons from overseas are instructive. Britain’s sole nuclear project this century, the Hinkley Point C power station, had an initial cost of £9bn when announced in 2009. It’s now blown out to £34bn, and will not be completed until at least 2031. It’s no different in the US. The Vogtel power plant in Georgia was initially estimated to cost $US14bn, but blew out to $US34bn when completed this year. Indeed, the cost overrun was so scandalous that Vogtel will probably be the last such power plant ever built in the US. These are the realities of nuclear power. We do not want or need them here.

Ken Enderby, Concord, NSW

The Labor government may imagine it’s on a winner by attacking Peter Dutton for not declaring the cost of his nuclear energy manifesto (“Dutton coy on nuclear plan costs”, 23/9). He could well respond by saying, “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”. And legitimately ask: How is it possible that Labor has been able to engage its renewable ambition for net zero without a serious analysis of the end-to-end cost to taxpayers?

Yes, it can point to the “budgeted” tens of billions of dollars that is available to opportunistic carpetbaggers keen to board the “renewable superpower” gravy train. But in essence it’s an open cheque that takes little account of the life of the government’s favoured renewable infrastructure. Australians deserve to know what they are up for in this transition to the new energy paradigm. They expect a higher level of transparency from both major parties.

Kim Keogh, Claremont, WA

It’s hardly surprising that Peter Dutton is not prepared to release detailed costings for his nuclear plan (“Dutton coy on nuclear plan costs”, 23/9). As he himself admits, this proposal will have a “significant upfront cost”. All of the seven proposed sites already have large renewables projects under way. It would take several years and cost billions to build nuclear reactors in these locations.

The Hunter site is on a known fault line, although according to shadow energy minister Ted O’Brien we need a feasibility study to establish this fact. Yet another expensive delay, only to prove the site is unsuitable after all. The opposition claims to be the party that offers responsible economic management. This is not a sensible proposal.

Anne O’Hara, Wanniassa, ACT

If people want nuclear costs there are plenty of examples around the world to refer to. No one in the world is trying to power a country mainly with wind and solar, as Chris Bowen is attempting to do, so there are no other examples to refer to, and so far he has not given any costs.

Nor has he accounted for the expensive damage being done to native bush and farmland. Voters need to be able to make comparisons between Bowen’s and Peter Dutton’s plans, but cannot do so if the media do not demand full details from both sides.

Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT