DEAR News Of The Area

RECENT letter writer Kim Moseley is very uninformed in relation to the cost of nuclear energy.

Let’s say that the seven proposed nuclear reactors cost the Government $15 billion each – that works out to about $105 billion.

In the GenCost report the total cost of renewables is estimated to be approximately $1.9 trillion by 2050 and that is without the cost for the associated 28,000 kilometres of wires and towers and batteries which is estimated to at least double that cost.

So here we have to add another $3.8 trillion.

Then what is not factored into the argument is that the solar panels and wind turbines only last about fifteen to 20 years.

This means that they will have to be replaced at least three to four times as the nuclear reactors are still viable for 80 or 100 years.

So an extra $5.7 trillion would be needed for the renewables to be replaced.

The big battery in South Australia cost $90 million and can only firm power for 1.3 hours.

What do you think the cost of 30 or 40 of these batteries will be?

Even firming batteries to last 24 hours will cost over $1.6 trillion and need to be replaced every ten to fifteen years.

The cost of renewables simply does not add up.

Nuclear is way more cost effective and the bush won’t need to be vandalised putting in wind turbines and solar panels.

Also no new transmission lines would be needed.

Regards,
Keith SALMON,
Moonee Beach.