Balanced power mix

DEREK Costello (Letters, GA, 29/10 considers that Australia can maintain a modern energy-based economy with total reliance on renewable technology, i.e. no coal, gas or nuclear power generation.

Therefore, no baseload dispatchable power to support demand when wind and solar are not producing.

The AEMO is clear in its prediction that baseload power supply is reducing in coming years through the closure of coal power plants and the lack of gas development to offset the supply demand. It is abundantly clear that renewables require backup to keep the lights on and manufacturing producing. Then what are the options if in Derek’s opinion that even high efficiency/low emissions gas and nuclear options should not be in the power mix?

It is said that nuclear power is the most expensive of all options and, to some alarmists, the most dangerous. If that is the case then why are there at present 440 nuclear power reactors globally in 32 countries with another 55 under construction and a further 90 in planning or on order?

Studies have shown that the levelised cost of energy including consideration of construction costs, government subsidies, financing interest and life cycle across the various sources of power indicate that there is about 10 cents kWh difference between them.

Furthermore, there is a growing concern across several industries regarding state and federal government policy and the future of sustainable energy to the extent that a number of businesses critically dependent on reliable power (including nursing homes) have or are planning to install diesel generators. A balanced mix of low emissions power sources is not fossil foolishness, it is essential to ensure our economic future. Ken Beatty, Point Lonsdale