‘Liberals must embrace nuclear energy as a point of difference’

Spin cycle: French President Emmanuel Macron is set to throw his weight behind a massive nuclear power program for France. Picture:

Welcome to the column where you provide the content. Claire Lehmann suggested that small nuclear reactors would get us to carbon neutral, giving us a clean, green energy source and making us a richer nation for it. That gave Comfortably Numb a jolt:

“This is exactly what the Liberal party needs to embrace as a point of difference … especially when the woke activists have no idea of base load power or desire to recognise nuclear energy as a green alternative as accepted by the EU.

“Out of the darkness of blackouts will emerge a demand for modular nuclear energy, and Australia has more to gain from developing that technology than buying Chinese windmills and solar panels.”

Jamie said:

“The best time for Australia to have a grown up discussion about emission free nuclear energy was 16 years ago. The second best time is now. But are we mature enough to even have the discussion? Will cancel culture stop us being a smart nation?”

Simple, said John:

“Lay the pros and cons of nuclear on the table for debate then hold a referendum to allow the people to decide.”

Kat countered:

“Alternatively just take it to the next election, it should have been on the table at this one.”

Graeme reckoned:

“It has worked in France for decades. It’s idiotic not to use it here.”

Geoff was less keen:

“And their waste keeps piling up or being shipped to other countries for unsafe storage.

France generates around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power but despite decades of activity it is no nearer a solution to the perils of nuclear waste. Many countries agree the hazardous material – some of it at temperatures of 90C – has to be disposed of deep below ground where it can be isolated from all living things for tens of thousands of years whilst the radiation slowly reduces. Despite advanced schemes in Finland, not a single country worldwide has an operational underground repository.”

Toby was hopeful:

“They are currently working on using lasers to reduce the waste dangers from hundreds of thousands of years to a few days. The technology is not here yet but that sure didn’t stop wind, solar and storage being forced into the grid when it was not fit for purpose.

“Thorium reactors will not have this issue of waste. If the trillions that have flowed to intermittents had gone to nuclear we would have cheap reliable safe power forever.”

Caveat_Emptor quoted Claire:

“ ‘If Australia were to vanish from the Earth, China would cancel out the subsequent annual reduction in our carbon footprint in just one month.’ *Sigh* This is the sad truth about Australia’s emissions that the ridiculous, unintelligent teals refuse to recognise. Australians should protest against this global warming nonsense in favour of a nuclear energy future.”

John’s gospel:

“Claire, you forget that for many ‘climate change’ has replaced religion. And there are as many fanatics. Therefore, logic and facts are an anathema.”

Poyns was perplexed:

“What really beggars belief is that the Greens do not support nuclear.”

Helen’s analysis:

“Nuclear is the best option as clumsy renewable policy creates more problems than solutions. Take solar panels. There are three types of solar panels: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and thin-filmed. Monocrystalline panels are made from a silicon fragment. Thin-film panels are overwhelmingly composed of cadmium telluride film wafers sandwiched between transparent conducting layers of mostly plastic.

“Thin-film solar panels can also be made from amorphous silicon (a-Si), which is similar to the composition of mono-crystalline and polycrystalline panels. Though these thin-film panels use silicon in their composition, they are not made up of solid silicon wafers. Rather, they are composed of non crystalline silicon placed on top of glass, plastic or metal.

“By mining quartz in readiness for the refining of poly silicon, you have the problem of exposure to silicon dust that is responsible for the progressive disease silicosis or lung fibrosis. This is considered an occupational hazard of the industry. That’s why they are made in China using Uighur labour.

“The refining process produces carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. Further refining uses hydrochloride acid to turn metallurgical silicon into the highly toxic trichloroslanes and an equally toxic liquid by-product silicon tetrachloride at 3-4 tonnes per one tonne of poly silicon. In the post industrial process of refining poly silicon into wafers cut from ingots, the manufacturer uses hydrofluoric acid, a particularly toxic product capable of destroying tissue and decalcifying bones. No unions for Uighurs!

“Thin Film Cells are an alternative to poly silicon wafers, as they compress a sandwich of cadmium telluride and cadmium sulphide into solar panel rolls. The only problem is that the heavy metal cadmium is also highly carcinogenic.

“And how many houses in Australia have how many toxic panels sitting on their roofs? Nuclear doesn’t sound that bad?”

Jon went nuclear:

“Nuclear is both the safest and cheapest form of baseload 24x365 electricity generation.

Considering actual causal fatalities, nuclear is far safer than wind or solar. By a country mile. It is exceptionally safe. By contrast, most fatalities can be attributed to hydro (dam collapses) and coal (particulate pollution).

“The high construction cost of a nuclear plant is more than offset by its 60-80 year life span, during which it generates continuously, maintenance notwithstanding. The running costs of a nuclear plant, by comparison, are minimal. Given plant construction costs can be depreciated across its useful life, the resulting cost per MWh is the cheapest form of continuous generation yet developed.

“And guess what – it’s not intermittent. It just keeps on keeping on. Further, nuclear fuel is so astoundingly energy dense, that the amount of fuel needed to run a reactor for a year would fit in the glove box of your car. All the nuclear waste ever produced globally since the first nuclear plant in the 1950s would fit in just 7 Olympic sized swimming pools. Yes, just 7.

In time we will come to understand that nuclear energy is humanity’s greatest ever invention to date.”

–

Tea party: Should the Liberals seek some Boris-like stickability?

Greg Sheridan reckoned that Liberal Party would be mad to lurch to the left in the search for the mythical middle ground. Rather, it should emulate Boris Johnson, who stuck to his guns on Brexit and prevailed, or John Howard, who would never have got the GST up if he relied on focus groups. Timothy went deep:

“The task before the Coalition is not one of conforming to the contemporary zeitgeist. The contemporary zeitgeist is extremely left leaning and is territory where Labor sits more or less comfortably. The Coalition cannot succeed by becoming Labor lite. If that lesson has not been learned from the era of Turnbull’s ineffectual leadership and now the 2022 election disaster then it never will be and you can write off the Coalition’s prospects of ever regaining government for good.

“The Coalition’s task is to reshape the zeitgeist in a way that is more suited to it. That is no minor task because the zeitgeist is presently pretty much ill disposed towards all things conservative. To reshape the zeitgeist, the Coalition will need, at a minimum, deep talent within its ranks and skill at crafting and communicating a persuasive alternative narrative. This is obviously a problem for it, because, with a few exceptions it has been swept clean of its heavyweight performers.

“The only thing that the Coalition can call in aid of this quest over time is the likely burgeoning of community discontent with Labor because, now confronted with the tasks of governing in the real world, it will be unable to deliver on the expectations it foolishly fostered such as preventing interest rates from rising, preventing cost of living pressures from escalating, and delivering real wage growth without increasing unemployment.

“But once again the Coalition will need deep talent to most effectively capitalise on this. And that problem will not be solved just by changing leaders.”

Raymond riffed:

“What do you mean ‘Lib lurch to the left would be disastrous’. Shouldn’t that be ‘Lib lurch to the left was disastrous’?”

Peter’s position:

“If the election result taught us anything – not that it’s a startling revelation – it’s that we want our politicians and their parties to stand for something more than just being elected.

Given the decline in votes for both major parties, that applies equally to both.

“The independents won support like never before because they had one or more clearly enunciated positions beyond empty slogans like a ‘stronger economy and national security’.

Old politics died last Saturday. Let’s hope the new version serves all of us more effectively.”

Micah’s plea:

“Don’t ever put an advertising man in charge of the Liberal Party again.”

Stupid World said:

“Liberal post-mortems will be lengthy. But sheer staggering incompetence, a lack of respect for party democracy, overcentralisation of power including candidate choice and a strange unwillingness to seriously fight for anything were more important than questions of left versus right. That’s a moderate conservative truth.”

Bob the Seer predicted:

“If the Libs lurch more to the left they are finished. Simples.”

JohnWW countered:

“The mythical middle ground … I disagree with Sheridan. The middle ground is real, it exists and it was sacred ground to John Howard. The Liberal Party lost the blue-ribbon seats to Teal independents because they had moved too far to the right. They lost other seats to Labor and Greens for the same reason. If they don’t correct this trajectory and return to the middle ground the Liberal Party will split into two separate parties –- guaranteed.”

–

Cartoon by Johannes Leak.

Peter Dutton promised that Australians would see another side of his character as opposition leader; a kinder, gentler Dutton 2.0. Sam Tyler said:

“ ‘We aren’t the Moderate Party. We aren’t the Conservative Party. We are Liberals. We are the Liberal Party.’ (Peter Dutton). Those many conservatives on these pages earlier in the week bleating on about the party only being a conservative party must feel a little chastened. “Many of us other sensible conservatives have been saying it was not just a party for conservatives (and never has been) and Peter Dutton agrees with that based on his quote. He obviously is supportive of John Howard’s broad church analogy and why wouldn’t he be, having served as an assistant minister in Howard’s government. Peter Dutton is a very savvy politician who understands that lurching to the right or left will keep the Liberals in opposition permanently.

“Hopefully those further to the right will stop throwing around childish epithets like LINO or CINO to describe Liberal politicians, like Dutton, who believe in broad church Liberalism (as opposed to small ‘l’ liberalism in the American progressive sense). We must not let Trumpist ideology destroy our greatest political party. All Liberals need to get behind Dutton.”

Chris said:

“Any Opposition Leader elected now doesn’t have to win the argument next week. It’s a 3 year strategy and tactics session. Sure we want to see bruises and wins getting racked up – as opportune.

“Results are to be known in the lead up and outcome of the next election. Dutton is a firm and strong character – a good choice considering the wavering vassals that head up the key portfolios for Labor.”

Scorpio was stinging:

“I don’t want kinder or gentler, I want leadership, someone who will make the hard but necessary decisions. Just a pity Mr Dutton wasn’t chosen 4 years ago to do the job, he would have been great. Don’t need another best friend.”

Last word to Helen:

“Mr Dutton, we like you as you are. You tell it like it is. So no apologies ever. The lefties are already running scared.”

–

Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.