Sandy Donald writes: Peter Dutton claims he will make power cheaper by using the most expensive sources of power. That implies massive and permanent subsidies with no information on where the money will come from.
We need to know how many new coal-fired power stations he intends us to pay for to provide power until nuclear comes online between 2040 and 2050.
We should also ask the cost of sanctions and penalty tariffs on Australian exports when he repudiates the Paris Agreement and starts increasing CO2 emissions.
Terry O’Hanlon writes: All Peter Dutton cares about is appearing to offer an alternative. He doesn’t care if it’s unrealistic or if there are federal and state laws in place that’ll make it impractical or even impossible. It’s likely better for him that way as he can more easily abandon his nuclear folly after he wins the election.
He wants simply to be proposing an alternative something, so he can give the electorate a justification for kicking the current mob out. That’s what electorates are doing around the world.
People want to blame someone for the cost of living crisis. And the government of the day is a good target for that blame.
Peter Barry writes: The opportunity for Peter Dutton to present his absurd nuclear policy with a straight face is largely the fault of Labor. The party was swept into office with an overwhelming mandate to just get on with the job of rolling out renewable power, and holds office in all states except hydro-blessed Tasmania. Instead of capitalising on this commanding position to roll out the transmission lines as a matter of national urgency, they have dithered and pussyfooted around.
Labor has been captured by the blarney of fossil fuel interests, especially the cynical gas lobby, endorsing ludicrous offsets and carbon capture fantasies. It’s a form of Stockholm syndrome. Our emissions are barely going down and much is being locked in long term. Methane and CO2 levels rise relentlessly. The climate is unstable and increasingly dangerous to life on the planet. And so many of us just don’t care.
Bill Barnes writes: Dutton and his strategists have appeared to borrow straight from the Steve Bannon playbook to “flood the zone with shit”. Announce something highly controversial, with little detail, and sit back and watch the media and other commentators fall over themselves in reporting on nothing.
Who is asking Dutton and his team the hard questions? Don’t give them any oxygen to feed us more BS but force them to acknowledge the mighty holes in their proposals.
This is no serious plan from Dutton. It’s all designed to give him something to talk about rather than answer questions about why he hasn’t got any climate policy.
Andrew Barnett writes: The benefits of nuclear power generation, being displacement of coal, outweigh the very substantial main risks, being nuclear waste and catastrophic industrial accidents. The best way to manage those risks is with strong regulation and a well-educated workforce.
Both of those risk mitigation strategies need people. Not just any people, the right people with the right skills, education, experience and temperament. These people do not grow on trees, or even graduate from university in large numbers.
So now an Australian political party wants to start poaching/hoarding those people so that we can displace renewable energy, and stop them from displacing coal-fired generation somewhere else. All so they can get elected without any plausible plans for a future Australia.
What a deplorable new low in Australian selfishness and arrogance.
Michael Stanley writes: I wonder if Dutton is giving Labor something that seems so good for them that they hurry early to an election they may not win.
People are in a mood to savage the government. They also know that Dutton’s nuclear idea is pie in the sky and will never get up — even if he wins.
So why not get out the baseball bat? Has Dutton set a trap for the overconfident?
Stevan Brennan writes: I cannot believe there is ongoing discussion about this insane idea. The costs are not just in dollars but so widespread it’s beyond a simple email.
It would be disastrous for the cost of living resulting in the most expensive electricity we’ve ever seen, reverse Australia’s commitments on climate action, and destroy the economy along with our regional influence and international reputation.
It’s totally destructive, full stop.
Bill Wallace writes: I think I must have fallen into the world of Alice in Wonderland. People cannot be seriously considering this nuclear plan. It fails every sort of reasonable test — other than keeping Dutton in the news.
