IT is hard to know what it will take for Peter Dutton to get the message on nuclear power. It seems that not only has he not consulted with residents living near the old Liddell coal-fired power station about building a nuclear power plant there, but its owner AGL has other plans wanting to transform the site into a "clean energy hub" ("AGL says no to nuclear power station at Liddell site", Newcastle Herald 16/3).
Mr Dutton is even resorting to undermining the CSIRO, saying its annual report for the energy market operator comparing the cost of different types of energy sources was "not a genuine piece of work." Perhaps this is because the report consistently shows nuclear power to be the most expensive, making the Coalition's nuclear policy unrealistic.
Ray Peck, Hawthorn
Smelter plan's an ambitious one
So, Tomago Aluminium plans to operate on 100 per cent renewable energy? I find this remarkable when it will require a constant 950 megawatts every hour of every day. Myself as a sceptic, I say the best of luck.
By my calculations producing the power from wind and solar for a 24-hour operation, during the average eight hours a day when wind and solar are productive, would require a total of 22,800 megawatts every hour, with 15,200 stored in batteries for the other 16 hours. This is what the Eraring power station produces every hour, providing 25 per cent of NSW's power supply. If this can be achieved without the government footing the bill, I say bravo, you will achieve what no one else has done or even tried to do.
I look forward to more information as to how large these wind and solar farms will be, where they will be located and how much government subsidy is expected. Will the profit from aluminium be more than the cost of wind and solar farm construction and maintenance, plus the removal and replacement every 15 to 20 years? Then there is the cost of disposal, if possible, which I assume is yet to be discussed. I suggest we look at the big picture; not that 950 megawatts is achievable, but is it achievable every hour of every day, and how much will it cost?
Carl Stevenson, Dora Creek
SA beats the German example
JOHN Cooper ("Coal cap had the opposite effect", Letters, 29/2) described Germany as a leading European nation in addressing climate change, and rightly so. For the 2023 year Germany's energy generation mix percentages were 59.7 per cent renewables, 38.8 per cent fossil fuels, and just 1.5% per cent nuclear. But there is an even more impressive local example he overlooked. In 2023, South Australia's generation mix percentages were 74 per cent renewables, 26 per cent fossil fuels, and no nuclear. He noted Germany had decided to delay closing down their last nuclear plants, now to occur by April 2025.
Richard Mallaby, Wangi Wangi
Power bill subsidies no answer
THE Australian Energy Regulator has released a draft plan to set the maximum price that an electricity retailer can charge a customer, indicating some price relief could be on the way for some households. At present the federal government subsidises electricity bills, but this support is due to cease this financial year. Analysis from the Australian Bureau of Statistics of data suggests that, even with the projected drop in power prices from mid-2024, removing the subsidies would lead to a lift in average energy bills of roughly 6.5 per cent. Giving more subsidies will not fix a broken energy supply system. If there are any clear-thinking adults around who can fix this problem please come forward; our politicians have clearly failed big time.
John Cooper, Charlestown
What ditching cash could cost us
IN my opinion the federal government is silent on the matter of a cashless society, on public buildings refusing cash. Libraries also refuse cash, stopping the working poor from the use of photocopying.
It's silent on public post offices closing, stopping the community from paying cash for their essentials. It's silent on small businesses who want cash transactions because they can't afford the plastic card bank charges, and silent on some big business and foreign food chains refusing cash.
I think politicians should stand by the money they print. A dollar is worth more in the hand than a plastic card. There is no security in a plastic card, for most people it would be a collar of debt, and cash is freedom as spenders don't have to answer to anybody.
I believe to centralise banks is to bulldoze democracy and freedom of choice. Cards have a place, but with the people struggling to make ends meet cash is more economical.
A cashless society might suit the capitalist banks who have a one track mind for control and fat profits. I believe if the banks get their way all I can see for Australia is a landscape of great poverty, small businesses closing on the high street, high unemployment and huge health and social problems.
Governments may think they will get a windfall taxing banks when cashless. I figure this will be only a drop in the ocean. Australian social values will fly out the window. So much will be lost in areas including equality, health, education and maintaining a secular society.
Cashless is anti-Australian.
Maureen O'Sullivan Davidson, Swansea
We aren't in control of the world's events
I HAVE to agree with Peter Devey ("We've got no say in US presidency", Letters, 21/3), Australians have no say in who becomes the next president of the USA. We can only hope our choice gets elected, but it seems some Australians are of the view that Australian governments at all levels have amazing international powers. The protests at the NSW parliament about the conflict and atrocities happening in Palestine are well out of the control of both our state and federal governments. It is good for Australians to have concerns about what is happening around the world, and to display their concern, but it doesn't matter; governments in Australia can't change what is happening.
Fred McInerney, Karuah
Stop the rot on energy
WE live in a world where there is an obvious lack of respect for young Australians when we are looking at the urgency of implementing renewable energy to deal with man induced climate change. Young Australians are the ones who will have to live with this. Those trying to push nuclear energy now that this will take decades to build. We don't have the time. We already have the means to produce energy using the wind and sunlight. It's time to stop the rot and get on with it for our children and grandchildren.
Colin Rowlatt, Newcastle
Dig deep on nuclear debate
I READ Amanda Vanstone's opinion ("There is a cost to not going nuclear", Opinion, 15/3). The piece was highly rhetorical, with typical use of fallacious argument. These are not facts as suggested in ("Vanstone incisive on energy", Letters, 19/3), Ms Vanstone's background and experience is hardly of a scientific nature. I would urge people to research for themselves indisputable facts about the implications of nuclear radiation before jumping on the nuclear bus.
Marvyn Smith, Heddon Greta
Doctors aren't alone feeling cost
I COMPLETELY understand doctors wanting more; everyone does, but the Federal government seems to be deliberately ignorant of the very low Medical Benefits Scheme schedule they pay. As a pensioner, my surgery used to charge me nothing, taking just the $41 Medical Benefits Scheme payment. As of January 2023, I now pay a premium of $44 on top of the pittance. It's about time the federal government did something about it.
Jim Ryan, Merewether
Share your opinion
To offer a contribution: email letters@newcastleherald.com.au or send a text message to 0427 154 176 (include name and suburb). Letters should be fewer than 200 words. Short Takes should be fewer than 50 words. Correspondence may be edited in any form.
