Tell the PM he’s dreamin’ on his social housing ‘accelerator’

The heavy responsibility of nuclear power

For decades, the coal and gas industry has assumed they have the right to
discharge their waste – CO2 – into our shared atmosphere. In most
situations in life we accept that responsibility comes with rights.
Where do we see examples of these industry players accepting their
responsibilities for the consequences of this discharge? Those
consequences include the effects of global heating, increased damage
from storms and other weather extremes. We all know the answer to that.

As the debate about possible future nuclear energy plays out, the
proponents of this technology (“Bowen defends wind as Orica backs nuclear”, September 20) need to accept the associated consequences and responsibilities.

In the best scenario, nuclear brings responsibilities for hundreds of
years of dangerous waste storage and other issues. In the worst-case
scenario, the responsibilities would extend, as in Fukushima, Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island, to massively expensive clean-up following a
meltdown. Accepting this responsibility is not tantamount to
expecting taxpayers to pick up the tab, as we so often see.

Given this implied and inherent failure to accept the worst consequences
and responsibilities, why would we even consider nuclear when other low-cost alternatives are available?

Robert Brown, Camberwell, Vic

No time for nuclear

Fossil fuel and related companies’ advocacy for nuclear power in Australia is a distraction from their own responsibility to decarbonise (“Bowen defends wind as Orica backs nuclear”, September 20). Orica boss Sanjeev Gandhi admits “I am not an expert in nuclear energy” but “if there is a case”, Australia should adopt it.

According to the recent CSIRO/Australian Energy Market Operator GenCost report, nuclear comes in at between $130 and $311 per MWh, solar and wind plus storage at between $60 and $100 per MWh.

The small modular reactors promoted by the Coalition have been plagued with technical difficulties, cost blow-outs and time delays.

Bill Gates says nuclear is “not weather dependent”. In July, France’s low nuclear output, due to maintenance and corrosion issues, was further threatened because the river water was too warm.

We do not have the time to begin a nuclear industry. Experts agree that beginning nuclear in Australia would take at least a decade, while climate scientists are revising up 2050 zero emissions targets as we continue to under-deliver.

Fiona Colin, Malvern East, Vic

Only the true cost can help Australians decide

Climate Minister Chris Bowen says the switch to nuclear is not feasible because the small modular nuclear reactors needed to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations have been costed at $387 billion (“Replacing coal with nuclear would cost $387b, says Chris Bowen”, September 19). This is a grossly disingenuous statement.

An honest costing would be calculated not on the gross headline cost but the net differential cost ie the cost of the SMNRs plus their long-term operating costs per kilowatt hour netted off against the costs of the alternatives, whatever they may be.

That figure would be a more accurate and honest calculation for people to consider.

Ron Fox, Maroubra, NSW

AI no match for human nature

What contradictory and irrational mumbo jumbo (“AI can be the solution to retirement financial illiteracy”, September 19). People’s natures do not change upon retirement. The frugal will remain frugal. The good timers and travellers will carry on. The wealthy will assist their children and grandchildren.

Signals from the body and family circumstances rather than investment advisers will dictate change in lifestyle. Decisions along the journey of life are more vital than those during retirement years.

The more important concern is for carers (“The burden of caring shouldn’t have to be a workplace secret”, September 19). See if AI can solve that problem.

Graeme Troy, Wagstaffe, NSW

Cashless Macquarie will cost customers

So, Macquarie Bank is going to go cash-free, with no deposits over the counter and no cheques. Why?

Macquarie has no branches but instead has an agency agreement with the National Australia Bank. Macquarie therefore doesn’t need to handle cash. As with statements, the costs of chequebooks and deposit books can be passed on to customers.

For the information of Macquarie Bank directors, a cheque is a good way to pay someone who doesn’t have credit card facilities and whose bank account details a Macquarie Bank customer doesn’t know. A family member in another state, for example.

For directors of other banks, some of their customers are also related to such people. Unlike bank directors, many of them prefer not to have their bank account details scattered around the internet on hackable payee lists.

G.T.W. Agnew, Coopers Plains, Qld

Board to blame for Qantas woes

I don’t blame Alan Joyce for the woes of Qantas, I blame the board.

Qantas is a masterclass of how to disenfranchise the customer. In no particular order, Qantas threw out hundreds of Chairman’s Lounge members a few years ago because we refused to sign contracts – which were never required before and were the genius idea from someone with no idea of customer loyalty. What a great plan: throw out and insult the ultimate decision maker of each company that spends a lot of money with you.

Then shut the airline during COVID-19 when the country needed the flights. Thanks to Singapore Airlines and Qatar, we remained connected with the world.

Follow that by booking tickets on cancelled flights, refusing refunds, sacking people illegally and of late removing all sensible tickets from the Reward Seats program. The fleet is also in dire need of renewal, and the air product is ordinary at best.

Qantas insulted its most loyal customers, ripped off the rest, and refused to refund money and honour the rewards flight system. No wonder Qantas is on the nose.

The new CEO has a massive job ahead of her. Good luck.

Ross Jackson, Wahroonga, NSW

How about a lifetime in the lounge?

With The Australian Financial Review returned to its rightful place in the Qantas Club, perhaps the board can continue building on its promised humility. Lifetime Chairman’s Lounge Membership to Joe Aston, for Rear Window’s excellent investigative reporting into our erstwhile national airline, would seem fair reward.

Kerry Bell, Jandakot, WA

Keep Aston facing the rear

If Joe Aston becomes the chairman of Qantas (Letters, September 19), he will need to look straight ahead from the flight deck and stop looking out the rear window.

Allan Gibson, Cherrybrook, NSW