Letter to the Editor: Anti-nuclear nonsense

DEAR News Of The Area,

PETER Sobey’s letter (NOTA 7/6/24) is somewhat illogical.

He writes that small nuclear reactors “are like unicorns – they don’t exist.”

He then goes on to contradict himself and says they do exist.

Further, he suggests that nuclear power plants will be located on coastal rivers because: “As with any coal plants a nuclear plant would require a ready and reliable access to cooling water.”

As coal-fired plants were not located on coastal rivers why should this be the case for nuclear plants?

He says a nuclear plant is more expensive than renewables.

However, has he factored in that a nuclear plant will last 60-plus years, while wind and solar ten to 20 years.

Consequently, during the life of the nuclear plant, the renewable plant will have to be rebuilt at least three times.

Then there is the cost of disposal of millions of solar panels and turbine blades, some parts of which are not recyclable.

All of which will go to landfill, contaminating the soil.

There is also the cost to agriculture of prime farmland being taken out of production.

Nuclear plants can simply be connected to the existing grid while renewables require 10,000 kms of new wires.

The reason that coal fired power stations are shutting down, is because of government policy and vast amounts of subsidies given to the renewable industry making it artificially uneconomical to maintain the coal fired plant.

I wonder how many people would install solar panels if the government did not heavily subsidise them and how many have given the slightest thought to their disposal at end of life? To that last question, I dare say none.

His suggestion that solar with batteries is the way to go highlights the real unicorn.

A battery system that can power a city for more than 30 minutes does not exist.

South Australia discovered this when their “big battery” failed when put to the test.

Finally Mr Sobey throws in the usual bit of nuclear weapon scare mongering just in case he has failed to convince.

Clearly nuclear is the way to go.

With Australia possessing one third of the world’s uranium, fuel would not be a problem.

Maybe Mr Sobey would like to see a solar or wind farm at the jetty foreshore instead of the currently talked of development.

No I guess not, that is for those folks out west to suffer.


Leave a Reply