Your correspondent would have been more credible if he had included some evidence for his outlandish claims (Cost of living taking its toll, CCN 474).
For example, (his claim that the Federal Government is) “wasting billions of taxpayers’ dollars on net zero madness” (whatever that means) sounds rather excessive.
One thing is certain, though; this country cannot afford Peter Dutton’s nuclear fantasies, when renewable power is there for the taking.
Email, Feb 18
Dave Horsfall, North Gosford
Sun (EM radiation) and wind (Kinetic) energy are free for the taking but the electricity derived from them is NOT. Facilities are required to collect the diffuse energy over a wide area, convert the variable and intermittent electricity into a constant configuration of AC 240V 50Hz to be workable in our appliances and transmit it to the points of consumption. Given the low capacity factors of intermittent energy and the material-intensive nature of the mining and manufacture required, these facilities will be costly, if not ruinously so. ‘Renewables’ zealots totally ignore the capital cost of these facilities. Cheap energy is an oxymoron.
‘Renewables’ are really weather-dependent intermittents and cannot produce electricity as required. Nuclear fission can produce electricity on demand and is carbon-free. However, nuclear can only be considered as an interim measure at the moment because PERMANENT disposal has not yet been solved.
An inconvenient and uncomfortable truth is that, at the present time, there is no immaculate solution to our energy needs.
Charles, I suggest you look at the CSIRO GenCost report. Firmed renewables are not weather dependent and are the lowest cost option of providing reliable, on-demand energy. Nuclear is costly, and won’t work with our grid, particularly due to high rooftop solar penetration in the middle of the day