Skip to navigationSkip to contentSkip to footerHelp using this website - Accessibility statement
Advertisement

Opinion

Hydrogen dream is taking Australia in the wrong direction

Renewable journey shouldn’t include hydrogen; Chairman’s Lounge membership a mistake; franking credits ready for reform; a sad farewell to Joe Aston.

Key Points

  • We are always interested to hear your views on current topics.
  • If you would like to be published, please consider these guidelines.
  • Please send your letter to edletters@afr.com.au.

Samantha McCulloch, chief executive of Australian Energy Producers, would like us to be colour-blind when it comes to hydrogen, regardless of the fact this involves expansion into another fossil fuel venture (“We can’t afford the hydrogen debate to get bogged down”, October 10).

It may be true that “gas produces the cheapest and most cost-effective form of hydrogen”, but what of environmental costs?

Is hydrogen taking Australia in the wrong direction? Bloomberg

McCulloch says the independent voices such as the Internation Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the CSIRO believe hydrogen has a role to play. In fact, the 2022 IPCC report states: “As a general rule, and across all sectors, it is more efficient to use electricity directly and avoid the progressively larger conversion losses from producing hydrogen, ammonia, or constructed [synthetic] low GHG [greenhouse gas] hydrocarbons”.

As Saul Griffith of Rewiring Australia says, Australia – with its huge land mass and solar and wind resources – has the “easiest shot on goal” of almost any country in the world to become a renewable superpower, but not through hydrogen.

“The idea that hydrogen will play a large role in the energy future does not make economic or thermodynamic sense.”

Advertisement

To advocate hydrogen of any colour is taking our decarbonisation efforts in the wrong direction.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic

Nuclear not as costly as you think

Rita Baranwal, Westinghouse senior vice president, believes nuclear is affordable (“Bowen’s $387b nuclear price tag ‘doesn’t make sense’”, October 9).

Perhaps she’s right. After all, if nuclear is prohibitively expensive, then those who are building the 60 reactors under construction around the world, planning another 110 and proposing more than 300 such devices need remedial spreadsheet training.

Or perhaps they don’t. France relies more on nuclear power than any other nation and has the best understanding of nuclear energy economics of any nation. The French show no signs of moving away from nuclear. Quite the opposite.

Advertisement

Then there are developing nations such as Bangladesh, Egypt and Turkey, which are joining the nuclear club. Pakistan and India seem content with nuclear power: they’re adding to their existing nuclear fleets.

How can nuclear be affordable for developing nations but not Australia?

Wally McColl, Roseville, NSW

Accepting Lounge invitations a mistake

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities and Investments Commission are arguably our two most important regulatory institutions, and absolute integrity and unimpeachability are cornerstone obligations.

I would have thought it beyond obvious that neither of the chairs of these regulators should have accepted invitations to the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge, either before they were elected to their current positions, or subsequently. (“Revealed: who’s inside the Qantas Chairman’s Lounge”, October 7-8).

Advertisement

It is not the fact of holding Chairman’s Lounge invitations that necessarily creates the potential for a conflict of interest. It is more the perception that those invitations could be seen to have an effect on their professional judgment.

And as “conflicts of interest 101” repeatedly reminds us, it is the perception as opposed to the fact of a potential for conflict of interest that more often than not creates the uncertainty. In roles such as these, there should never be even a suggestion of uncertainty.

Ralph McHenry, Brighton East, Vic

Franking credits ripe for reform

The Labor Party and economists continue to move down the wrong path in relation to the application of dividend imputation credits.

I agree that it is ludicrous to connect the application to capital raisings (“Labor’s franking credit changes raise bigger questions”, October 5). The dividend imputation system is sound and logical and avoids the double taxation of dividends.

Advertisement

However, on a broader front the application of dividend imputation credits requires reform. Change is needed to the taxation benefits of recipients.

Enormous influence has been generated by the superannuation industry due to the massive $3.4 trillion superannuation kitty. Superannuation funds are steering dividend policies of corporate Australia. They are also operating their own businesses and competing with private enterprise.

There needs to be a levelling up. Taxing superannuation funds in accumulation mode at the same rate as companies (30 per cent) and at half the company rate (15 per cent) in pension mode will create a much better balance between the superannuation and taxation systems.

The leakage of company tax revenue from the federal budget will ease significantly, and pressure on corporate Australia to pay dividends will ease.

Graeme Troy, Wagstaffe, NSW

Get on with the job

Advertisement

As National Reconstruction Fund chairman Martijn Wilder suggests, now is indeed the time to “be brave” on the energy transition (“‘Go hard, be brave’, says $15b green bank boss”, October 9).

If Australia can afford $368 billion for nuclear submarines that won’t arrive until 2040, we can afford to properly fund clean energy projects and safer, lower-maintenance underground transmission lines (“Transgrid hiked cost of buried cables: residents”, October 9).

The nation’s energy market operator is pushing for all levers to be pulled to roll out renewable energy and transmission (“Regulator in big push on renewables pace”, October 9).

And if we need any further incentives, Deloitte Access Economics recently reported that using our natural advantages in decarbonising resources of solar, wind and critical minerals could add $435 billion to our economy by 2050.

Let’s roll up our sleeves and get on with this most important job.

Amy Hiller, Kew, Vic

Advertisement

Not your average Joe

From the day he was hired, he was not going to be your average Joe (“Joe Aston to leave the Financial Review”, October 7).

If his readers thought they had seen him at his best when he exposed the Naked CEO, they were mistaken, and soon his engines were firing on all cylinders, awaiting control tower clearance to take off.

Once airborne, like Charles Schulz’s depiction of Snoopy the Flying Ace, Aston was dogged with his sorties to bring down the baron at the controls of a flying kangaroo. For those in his sights, danger lay ahead. Yet for his faithful followers of Rear Window, he fired off missives that hit and wounded his nemesis.

Thanks, Joe, you were the man for these times.

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW

Advertisement

The definition of fearless

I’m not exaggerating when I say I am devastated to hear of Joe Aston’s imminent departure (“Joe Aston to leave the Financial Review”, October 7).

We hear the word “fearless” a lot nowadays; Joe’s output was truly that, an utterly unique, outrageously entertaining blend of incisiveness and humour far surpassing anything else in Australian print media.

Highlights for me include Judith Neilson’s $400 million worth of Platinum stock being “scant compensation” for her marriage to Kerr, and Charlie Aitken’s investment in “LMVH”: “If only he’d misspelled more tickers, the fund could’ve actually performed better.”

We can only hope Joe keeps an eye on the Australian business community in some other capacity, or it’s happy days again for the endless cavalcade of assorted liars, charlatans and self-promotors we depended on him to keep in line. Thank you for everything, Joe, my morning commute just got a lot more tedious.

Joshua Hopp, Bronte, NSW

Letters to the Editor

  • We are always interested to hear your views on current topics. Guidelines here and please send your letter to edletters@afr.com.au

Read More

Latest In Federal

Fetching latest articles

Most Viewed In Politics