Nuclear power too risky FORUM

The correspondent claims renewable sources of energy (solar and wind) “do not constitute a full replacement for coal or nuclear … because they are intermittent and require prohibitively expensive storage to give dependable electricity”.

Despite small, big and bigger batteries being built all over the planet by multi-national companies that have proven the technology and are in it for shareholder profits, the end of the beginning for batteries hasn’t even arrived yet.

Your correspondent goes on to boldly pronounce that the Waratah Super Battery is “almost doomed-to-fail policy and will cost us, the taxpayers, probably in the form of blackouts and permanent high costs”.

This despite solar and wind generated electricity prices falling constantly and rapidly.

I think we would all be better off in every way with a few blackouts than … proposed nuclear powered submarines armed with nuclear missiles accidentally hitting a nuclear power plant.

It’s even possible that in a time of conflict an adversary could deliberately target nuclear power establishments anywhere on the globe.

A few blackouts or mutually assured destruction? I know what I would prefer.

Email, Mar 20 Bryan Ellis, Umina Beach

Nuclear power not feasible FORUM

Charles Hemmings (CCN332) ignores the problem with nuclear power more fundamental than disposal of waste.

It remains a fact that Australia has no nuclear power station. Furthermore, there are no plans to build any, nor proposals to fund the same either public or private.

The cost of just one nuclear power station would be mind boggling.

Then it needs to be determined where to locate such a project and we’d probably require several.

And with no expertise in nuclear technologies, Australia