More detail needed on nuclear costs, proposed energy mix

It is commendable that Peter Dutton hopes to gain parliamentary support for his energy policy (“Dutton hoping for bipartisan nuclear policy”, 24/9). For too long, Australia has been at war on climate and energy pathways. However, given the current state of play in Canberra, multi-partisan support would be required. And before support can be given, we need much more detail – not just on cost but also on the mix. For example, the capacity of the seven proposed nuclear power plants, five large and two small, would be around 6 gigawatts generating an optimistic 50 terawatt hours a year. However, Australia currently uses around 270TWh a year, meaning most of the electricity would have to come from other sources. Until Mr Dutton provides detail on the energy mix, asking for support is premature.

Ray Peck, Hawthorn, Vic

The Labor-Green ideological opposition to nuclear flies in the face of reality and common sense. The World Nuclear Association records 439 nuclear reactors operating worldwide, with a further 56 under construction. As Robert Gottliebsen points out, most of these nations use nuclear in their energy mix to firm up intermittent renewables and reduce CO2 emissions (“Political ambition may endanger our energy costs for a long time”, 24/9). As to the competing question of capital and operational costs, nuclear power plants generate carbon-free power 24/7 at a capacity factor of 92 per cent, while Scientific American gives them an operational life expectancy of 50 to 70 years. The US Energy Information Administration assesses the capacity factor of a wind farm at 25 to 35 per cent with a life of 25 to 30 years. Solar utility power farms have a capacity factor of 24 per cent; their first and second-generation inverters have a 15-year average lifespan. Despite your writer’s concerns about our energy future, my money is on Peter Dutton’s cost-benefit analysis where these operational realities will prove the value of his network of small modular nuclear power plants. This is the pathway to firming renewables, reducing emissions, and the only way of achieving net zero by 2050

Kevin Begaud, Dee Why, NSW

Path to peace

Greg Sheridan presents a controversial but valid assertion that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, despite their polarising reputations, have demonstrated a deeper grasp of Middle Eastern dynamics than many traditional foreign policy analysts. Netanyahu’s “outside in” approach, securing peace with neighbouring nations before addressing the Palestinian issue, defies conventional thinking. Trump advanced this strategy through the Abraham Accords, establishing peace treaties between Israel and several Arab nations. Sheridan asserts that Palestinians have rejected several statehood offers due to internal challenges and external pressures, particularly from Iran and militant groups. While this is true, the deeper issue remains: Palestinian leaders reject the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. Normalisation, rather than immediate sovereignty, may offer the best path towards peace, but real progress towards a Palestinian state can occur only when its leadership accepts Israel’s right to exist securely. In the meantime, Israel will continue to defend itself against Iran’s three proxies determined to destroy it.

John Kempler, Rose Bay, NSW

Corporate greed

While the supermarket giants’ chicanery with their “specials” is deplorable, if they are price-gouging they have little to show for it (“ ‘Discounts on truth in every aisle’ ”, 24/9). For all their hundreds of stores and tens of thousands of employees, Coles and Woolies posted profits of barely $1bn each in the past year, with minimal dividends to shareholders. Meanwhile the four big banks shared profits out of a pool of more than $40bn, with commensurate dividends for shareholders. Competition from Aldi has done more than the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission to contain price rises, which are dictated more by supply chain costs than corporate greed. Coles and Woolies also carry out community service by carrying low-volume household items such as shoelaces and light globes, not readily available in smaller chains. We should not fall for the Labor and Greens attempt to scapegoat the supermarkets or the cost-of-living hurt brought about by their own actions.

John Morrissey, Hawthorn, Vic

Most consumers had suspected the zombie price rises and “discounts” at Coles and Woolworths. Instead of treating customers as valued clients, the big supermarkets have operated a rip-off scheme. Corporate executives then reel in big bonuses from inflated profits. Similar pricing patterns appear to operate at the big petrol stations, with prices fluctuating by 30c to 40c per litre over a couple of weeks without any corresponding input price changes. Given petrol is a key driver of inflation, this deserves similar scrutiny.

Lee Smith, Kenmore, Qld