Nuclear too expensive? Snowy 2.0 puts the lie to that

The opposition’s policy announcement “Dutton to flick switch on nuclear” (4/3) will shortly be followed by a decision on power increases for 2024-25. They will confirm Labor’s broken promise to cut power bills by $275. A nuclear option has been dismissed by Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who argues it’s not cost competitive and the timelines too lengthy and impractical.

A comparison with our largest renewable project, Snowy 2.0, doesn’t support his contentions. Assuming Snowy 2.0 is online by 2030, it will have taken over a decade to be operational. Costs have blown out to $12bn, but without two new transmission links it’s worthless. The bill could be upwards of $20bn once HumeLink and VNI West are added. The financial risks of the project are carried by taxpayers, the owners of Snowy Hydro. They amount to billions in loans, equity investments, contract claims, further blowouts and even possible failure.

By contrast, several small nuclear reactors located on the site of closed power stations and using existing transmission could result in huge savings. However, valid concerns about safety and waste will need answers. So, too, our need for reliable baseload power beyond 2050. Even with a range of firming options, like Snowy 2.0, renewables can’t provide that necessary certainty 24/7. Already several trade-exposed industries are at risk. There is no valid reason for Australia remaining the only nation in the G20 to persist with a ban. It acts as a brake on a comprehensive assessment of new emissions-free nuclear technologies as part of our future energy mix.

Jennie George, Mollymook, NSW

So, the Coalition is likely moving towards removing the ban on developing nuclear energy in Australia. Good stuff as far as it goes.

Since the 1950s we have operated a successful and valuable nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney. We have decided to buy nuclear-powered submarines for our defence force.

Yet the prospect of using nuclear power for energy supply is paralysed by short-term politics.

That said, if evaluating nuclear power as a source of energy were to start now it would be many years before any installation took place.

The bigger issue is the time-frame in chasing the net-zero emissions renewables dream, and the almost incalculable cost of the short-term chase to achieve it. That is where the difficult politics needs conquering.

The planet has evolved climatically over many billions of years. Yet we reduce arguments about dealing with climate change down to minuscule human lifetimes and to even more incalculably small political cycle timeframes.

Maintaining our existing coal and gas-fired power stations and the existing distribution infrastructure for another generation while we bring on alternatives is the only sensible way forward.

Chris Chown, Killara, NSW

Full marks to the Coalition for taking a stand in favour of nuclear. Industry will not survive here without reliable and cheap energy, especially if relying on process heat. The renewables fantasy will drive industry to countries with low environmental standards.

It is going to take very strong leadership, including negotiating with the sometimes hostile or opportunistic states and territories, to modernise our country so it is fit for the decades ahead. Particularly, we must deal with the structural budget deficit, rapidly becoming worse as the population ages. Both payroll tax (inhibiting employment) and stamp duty (a barrier to changing homes) are two taxes that should be removed pronto.

To raise more revenue, discretionary trusts should be taxed at the trustee level as if one entity (these are used simply to minimise tax without any economic benefit); superannuation funds should be taxed at 15 per cent at all times (allowing a tax-free threshold to $19,000, equivalent to the personal income threshold, for those retired); GST should be widened and increased; rental property losses should be quarantined to the property (rather than allowing offsetting against other income); excess franking credits should not be refunded; the many concessions and allowances in the tax legislation should be wound back to whole of life (rather than bring-forward write-offs); and government spending should be set as a fixed percentage of GDP.

It is going to take courage to do the above. Labor has shown it has no zest for reform (witness the stage three tax cut lie); the question is whether the Coalition can do it.

Ian Morison, Forrest, ACT