Your nuclear correspondent in Issue 498 has written some inconvenient truths.
Speaking as someone with a multidisciplinary and relevant academic background in energy and more than four decades in relevant industries (including energy companies), I agree with nearly all he said, but I was not so bold as to say some of the things he did for fear of being sued.
Politicians should listen to the experts who do not depend on them for their career.
But, of course, it is all about being voted in again.
Your correspondent was focusing on the present, which is quite reasonable; we have to do that.
However, there is no immaculate solution to our energy needs.
In the interim, nuclear is a good option, being emission free and dispatchable.
However, nuclear fission has a problem about permanent disposal and there are millions of tonnes of it around the world waiting to be properly disposed.
I have yet to understand why we want net zero at all costs, when we are a significant exporter of coal.
We are actually contributing to the emissions that seem to be warming the planet.
The word that comes to mind is ostrith (head in the sand).
Email, Aug 8
Charles Hemmings, Woy Woy
Nuclear isn’t a short-term fix. building one would take 15+ years and billions. fantasy to call it an interim solution.
the last election was a clear choice: nuclear vs renewables. the liberal party got demolished at the ballot box because voters rejected their nuclear plan.
net-zero isn’t a drain. firmed renewables—solar, wind, storage—are cheaper, cleaner, and create jobs. air is cleaner, energy is reliable, economy benefits.
facts matter. selective examples and opinion don’t cut it. misinformation wastes time and kills progress.
James Metford, explain why South Australian had the highest use of renewables (75% – mainly wind) and yet the highest electricity bills in the country?