Nuclear stance gives Coalition an advantage on energy

One important element of Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s budget reply speech could be described only as historic. He has now placed nuclear power generation on the agenda (“We’ll take the nuclear option: Libs”, 12/5), something Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s fervently Green band has found impossible even to mention.

This watershed declaration should be the saving grace from our current highly visible and self-inflicted steady decline into the black abyss of our nation’s future power supply.

Yes, it is early days, but I and many others will heave a huge sigh of relief knowing that someone with common sense has identified the problem and is prepared to initiate a workable solution. In the meantime, under Labor management, the price of electricity is continuing to increase while supply decreases, and their only solution is to provide rebates from our taxes – a real Yes Minister solution that the taxpayer is expected to accept.

Tom Moylan, Melbourne

I’m not sure I agree with Peter Dutton when he calls nuclear power safe, reliable and cost-effective. It initially seems cheap, but evidence from Germany suggests that this very expensive, “cheap”, clean power comes with even more of a price when, after 60 years, there is nuclear waste from the dismantling of radioactive plants. Just look to Europe for examples: three nuclear power stations have recently shut down in Germany, and the radioactive fallout of Chernobyl in the 1980s led countries such as Italy and Sweden to shut down their reactors. The more recent nuclear disaster in Fukushima is also cause for concern. The risks of nuclear power generation are ultimately uncontrollable and to have no nuclear power generation makes any country safer while also avoiding the problem of nuclear waste.

Our current and future generations will thank us for not going down the nuclear power generation path.

Mathilde Schaefer-Buss, Woodforde, SA

At last we are seeing the Liberal party offer alternative solutions to Labor’s climate change policy. The choice is clearly laid out: nuclear and gas versus wind, solar, batteries and hydrogen. Nuclear and gas are well-proven technologies and are affordable. Wind and solar are unreliable; batteries cannot achieve the required performance; and hydrogen is still in the development stage with the odds of it becoming economically viable not looking good. This option looks unaffordable.

Peter Dutton needs to strongly argue the Liberal option that, while the theory of climate change is strongly promoted, it makes little sense to turn the energy sector upside down with a net-zero aim when the goal may not be realistic.

R. Watson, Sunnybank Hills, Qld

I expect that the Liberal Party thinking positively about nuclear power, as per Peter Dutton’s budget reply, will provoke howls of derision among many. Is nuclear power a safer way to generate electricity than coal, oil or gas, which we often accept as safe? Yes – safer by a long way.

Would nuclear power be a more expensive way to generate electricity in Australia, without harmful emission of greenhouse gases, than any other technology that is currently available? Not for an industry that is allowed to plan more than about 10 years ahead. Would the development of a civil nuclear power industry in Australia contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons? No.

Don Higson, Paddington, NSW

In politics, charisma and the ability to use words to inspire go a long way in winning voter support. Obviously, policies matter greatly, but a leader’s appealing personality and convincing rhetoric often tip the scale. Peter Dutton is a sound operator, but his budget reply was relatively broad and short on policy specifics, admittedly not uncommon in budget replies (“Picking fruit but what is the solution”, 12/5). Overall, Mr Dutton’s reply is unlikely to do more than cause some heads to nod in support. For instance, no mention was made of the urgent need to restructure our tax base, a change that is long overdue. Put bluntly, the budget reply was a missed opportunity to impress the electoral base of voters. The opposition needs much more than that if they wish to return to government. A more convincing but still sound leader would be a good start.

Michael Schilling, Millswood, SA