Already I’m feeling lied to by the Leader of the Opposition who tells me that dirty nuclear power is cheaper than clean solar, wind and batteries.
His own costings say that wind power costs about a 10th of the cost of a nuclear power station to build.
Everyone from the International Energy Agency to the CSIRO scientists and even the Business Council of Australia agree that nuclear is more expensive and slower to build than renewable energy.
That’s why the private sector is largely paying for our clean energy revolution – because it makes financial sense.
(Which is) unlike nuclear which is so expensive that (Leader of the Opposition Peter) Dutton would have to use our taxpayer money.
For Dutton’s nuclear reactors’ price tag, we could install rooftop solar on every Australian home and still have billions left over to fund schools and hospitals!
So why is Dutton trying to convince us that spending billions of taxpayer money on nuclear is a good idea?
Perhaps it’s because it will prolong his Liberal Party donors’ coal and gas investments while we wait for the nuclear to eventually be built?
The Central Coast and Hunter region has dealt with pollution from coal for decades – we don’t want to add the even-more-dangerous nuclear power and uranium waste to this deadly mix.
More clean solar, wind and batteries is what I want for our future.
Email, Dec13
Suzie Brown, Narara
Suzie Brown (Dec13) makes a number of statements and assumptions that just dont add up.
We would all agree that we need to find a better and cleaner way to create our energy needs. We need to be aware that there isnt just one solution and neither political party is advocating this. Both party’s acknowledge the energy mix what Suzie has already mentioned. But both parties understand that there is a need for baseline power that can provide energy when the renewable energy isnt available.
I have solar and battery backup at my home. If the sun isnt adequate my battery kicks in – like in the evening and night. The next day the battery recharges. Works great except when we have two or more days of low solar production, even more so in winter. I then can get my base line power from the grid.
All party’s recognise this and propose some sort of generating capacity for times when solar and wind arent enough. Building batteries/Pumped hydro, to cover this need, when there are many days we might just get no sun, isnt viable. A few years ago we had weeks of rain, which created floods and no solar power. How do you cover for that with batteries. So we need generating plants. Labor suggests Gas and Liberals Nuclear.
To make wild accusations that because one party proposes one solution rather than another, that this means they are beholden to a “donor” is just plain wrong. We need to look at all possibilities.
We moved to renewables to create clean air. Renewables arent the cheapest form of power especially when you include the need for backup. Coal is the cheapest and available 24 hours. But we felt that cheap wasnt the way to be clean. So we were told we had to pay more. Now Gas as proposed by Labor is still a fossil fuel and pollutes the air with carbon dioxide. Nuclear doesnt produce carbon dioxide. Now we are told that cost is more important. What is it to be? Large solar farms, wind turbines and transmission lines are also polluting, but this may be a price we need to pay.
We have no idea what the cost could be because we have a ban on nuclear. Remove the ban then companies will spend time and let us know what it will cost. They wont waste time if the law says they could never build it anyway.
Then we know and then we can decide/vote based on true facts rather than ideology of anyone person/party or interest group.