‘Why is nuclear the debate the nation is not allowed to have?’
“Why is it the debate the nation is not allowed to have? Who does not permit this important discussion? Where is the open forum of ideas? What will be Australia’s energy future, without a thorough all encompassing research of this topic? When will this happen?”
Henry wrote:
“Thanks Claire, another common sense view and logical argument to help think through our future energy security; cos when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine we need a baseload.
“The climate tragics need to realise that exporting our ‘dirty’ manufacturing processes to China and the like is never going to be beneficial to our country in the long term. We need to bring home our manufacturing industry and for that we need reliable energy!”
James M said:
“Another point is that nuclear reactors are steam generators, much like the gas or coal fired boilers at present day generating plants. Hence they could be added to existing power stations and use the turbines, generators and transmission equipment that is in place now.”
Andrew noted:
“Ziggy Switkowski said we should have nuclear energy 15 years ago. We have been sitting on our hands for far too long. The Adam Bandt followers will never agree to nuclear. They are fixed with their incorrect outdated attitudes.”
Katherine’s comment:
“It is either a crisis or it is not. And in a crisis you consider all options and take all steps. The dismissive attitude of Chris Bowen signifies to me that it is a political crisis not an environmental one.
“A day may come where you can store renewable electricity for a reasonable amount of time. That day is neither certain nor very soon. Almost all our economic competitors use nuclear power to back up their renewable plans. Many even use our uranium.
“This ‘crisis’ really comes down to a battle of purity and for the hearts and minds of the Left between Labor and the Greens and their pale imitations, the Teals. It is not about guaranteeing certainty for our electricity system or reducing our emissions.
“Albo could end the climate wars, sideline the Greens and Teals and steal the Coalitions plans by initiating the use of nuclear energy. Unfortunately, his left wing loyalty has left him blinded to this Hawke like opportunity.”
Arthur said:
“Many will say that Australia is not a suitable place to build nuclear plants. You need somewhere that’s geologically stable, politically stable, militarily stable, with sufficient space to store spent fuel, and ideally with it’s own supplies of uranium or other nuclear fuel.
But wait … that sounds exactly like Australia.”
Bryan wrote:
“One thing that Australia has and is in very short supply in Japan, China and Northern Europe is sunshine. Nuclear will struggle to compete with renewables based on cost. If you are wondering how cheap and how long new build nuclear reactors are, ask France about their reactor 3 project at Flamanville.
“The project started in 2007 with an original completion date of 2012. This reactor is still not in production and not scheduled to go into production until 2023. This projects is also 5 times over budget and the French know how to build a reactor, can you imagine the disaster Australia would make of a nuclear project?”
Paul’s prescription:
“I’d like to add that our existing electricity transmission network is already built for point-source generation from power stations. Therefore it makes sense to phase out our ageing coal stations, replace them with nuclear, then build up our renewables as the battery technology improves across time.”
QuarkIan sparked:
“Nuclear? Why? We can’t afford duplicate power generation systems. Twice the price. Elementary. Why is it even being discussed? It looks like a rational debate, but it isn’t. The arguments against coal & oil are irrational. No good reason not to use coal & oil, in spite of wild rhetoric & passive acceptance that, somehow, decarbonising is good & is going to happen.”
AlanN’s theory:
“Nuclear power, as viewed through the ‘progressive’ left’s prism, is one of the ultimate manifestations of western civilisation’s achievements. Mindlessly, deaf to any discussion, it must be torn down.”
Robert said:
“And you have not even touched on the new technology in SMRs (small modular reactors) which are safer and lower cost, and can be scaled to fit many of the hard to abate industries like fertiliser and cement production. This head in the sand flat refusal of nuclear particularly in the Australian context where we own the fuel, we have the technology available and the allies and partners if we need it and we already have a reactor and policy framework for Lucas Heights. It is just silly and more greens idiocy. Btw today it is the older people who remember Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island that are afraid of nuclear not the younger generation.”
-
There is a blindingly obvious rot at the centre of the ALP that should be the first order of business for a new federal integrity body, wrote Janet Albrechtsen, to stop the CFMMEU funnelling buckets of money to Labor in return for a neutered Australian Building and Construction Commission. Zaphanera’s view:
“The needs to be a national integrity body that weeds out corruption at all levels of government. The issue of corruption is everywhere and it is time that politicians are held to account. Money for access dinners and lunches should be banned. Donations for policy should be criminalised. Local developments should be gone over with a fine tooth comb to look for any financial link between developers and councillors and families. The rot needs to stop!”
Neil was not optimistic:
“The left views integrity as a one-way street. If you are of the left, you are endowed with integrity by definition and anything you do is legitimate. If you are of the centre-right, then you are by default without integrity and anything you do is therefore corrupt. This whole integrity commission exercise will ultimately be revealed for what it is; a tool for one side of politics – the left – to nobble the other side while shielding their own interests and nefarious activities from any scrutiny.”
Tony in BS Central looked back in anger:
“ ‘Power Without Glory’, Frank Hardy’s 1950 book and in 72 years nothing has changed in Victoria.”
Ross raged:
“The whole issue of bank-rolling the teals also needs to be looked at. Here we have someone with a lot of money paying for the hoped-for election of people who need only to indicate they’re zealous for climate change action and fussed about corruption. By placing them in electorates that had Moderate Liberals there’s a targeting of the rational side of the Liberal Party. The result is that those electorates, known for Moderates style concerns, will see them as more activist than the Moderate Liberals would be. No point in trying it in hard-Right Liberal seats where the voters are less troubled about getting climate change action.
“So we have money buying influence. It also threatens to make the Coalition much harder to achieve government again because they’ve lost their Centre-Right to a large extent, so power goes to the Hard-Right. And we in the process lost one of the best Parliamentarians in Josh Frydenberg. Along with some other Centre-Right highly capable MP’s.
“It moves Australia towards being closer to a one-Party state, not a good move for those of us wanting to retain democracy and promote rational government.”
Boomer Bill said:
“I suspect a federal ICAC created under Labor will set in concrete the idea that it is OK for the union movement, representing a small and shrinking number of workers, to own and fund its own political party and to buy policies that advance its interest and those of the industry super sector it also controls. Most media in this country will see no problem with any of that.”
Troy’s tips:
“Victorian independent Helen Haines has challenged all sides of parliament to reveal every donor who contributes more than $1000 to their campaigns. Dr Haines called for an overhaul of the donations regime to ensure voters knew the source of funding for every MP, saying she would report payments within five business days when the amounts exceeded the official $14,500 threshold for disclosure.
“Australians are rightly concerned about the role of special interests in politics. Even a healthy democracy like Australia’s can be vulnerable to policy capture. Well-resourced interests – such as big business, unions and not-for-profits – use money, resources and relationships to influence policy to serve their interests, at times at the expense of the public interest. Even if they are only sometimes successful, it’s not the ‘fair go’ Australians expect.
“Access to decision makers is vital for anyone seeking to influence policy. But some groups get more access than others. Businesses with the most at stake in government decisions lobby harder and get more meetings with senior ministers. Some industries – such as gambling and property construction – are hugely over-represented compared to their contribution to the economy.”
-
Prince Harry is just one of many bloviaters who have used the UN as a hailer for their excruciating platitudes, according to The Mocker. Katherine commiserated:
“Harry has gone from the life of the party to death of the monarchy. It is a very sad tale.”
Steven approved:
“Great article! Really do get tired of the world’s private jet class, who wouldn’t know what an economy seat looks like if it fell on them, helpfully explaining to the rest us what needs to be done.”
Vince was vicious:
“This guy is Diana’s revenge on the royals and if they thought he was going quietly they need to think again.”
Roger reckoned:
“Increasingly, vacuous drivel marks all that Harry utters – made worse, no doubt by substantial input from his missus. More fool the UN for giving him a platform.”
Last word to Rob:
“A British prince attacking the Americans over how they run their country? Didn’t they fight a war not to have to put up with that?”
-
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.
Sydney Sweeney’s outrage is because she’s beige, not white
The Euphoria star’s new American Eagle campaign to sell jeans is cliche, not controversial and the online dummy spit should be about how boring it is when two bland brands combine.
Jim’s now-or-never moment has arrived – will he bottle it?
Inflation is the lowest in four years, unemployment is low and Labor has a majority. Now is the best time for Jim Chalmers to reform.
Welcome to the column where you provide the content. Claire Lehmann noted that 11 years after the Fukushima disaster, nuclear energy is making a comeback in Japan, China is planning 150 new nuclear reactors, and France remains a textbook case on how to cut emissions and have a power surplus through nuclear. Yet one of the most perplexing aspects of Australia’s climate policy debate is the dismissive attitude towards nuclear energy of those who are most alarmed about climate change. Graeme had questions: