JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Half of Australians already think nuclear power is a good idea

The election horse that mysteriously got away

Radioactive, nuclear energy

With virtually no public campaign at all, out of the starting gates, 53% of Australians thought nuclear power was good idea. Only 23% were against it. This was a survey done in April. Scott Morrison could have played the brave man-of-action card — (solving the climate wars with a 50 year old tried and true technology!).  It would have been an easy sell once Australians found out there were 440 nuclear power plants in the world, and that even Armenia has one. And so does Belarus. Mexico has two,  Hungary has four, and the Czech Republic has six. They’re everywhere.

Prime Minister Morrison may have even had these survey results in the lead up to the election? So why didn’t he play that card? Was it really fear of “the anti nuclear” green hippies, or something else…?

The conservative government missed the chance to sell a big vision, and nobble “Climate” witchcraft

Most Australians want nuclear power to reduce emissions from coal-fired plants – but the Greens will never let it happen

Daily Mail

Most Australians want a nuclear power industry to reduce emissions by scrapping coal-fired plants, but it’s unlikely to happen because politicians don’t agree. A poll found 53 per cent in Australians support ‘building nuclear power plants to supply electricity and reduce emissions’ and only 23 pre cent opposed.

Even Greens voters, whose party is fundamentally opposed to it, are warming to the idea with 44 per cent in favour compared to 30 per cent opposed. The nuclear option also gathered  70 per cent approval from Coalition voters, with 13 per cent opposed, and 52 per cent from Labor supporters while 27 per cent opposed.

The survey of 1,000 people was commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs in April.

Make no mistake, the cheapest solution to our power crisis starts with checking the scientific evidence of the foreign committee in Geneva that claims CO2 causes a catastrophe. For a mere 0.00001% of what we spend on renewables we could discover that the hot spot is still missing, the models were wrong, and CO2 is good for crops, forests and desert plants. We’d be free to use cheap brown coal power at 3 cents a kilowatt hour wholesale.

Nuclear isn’t that cheap but it’s better than the bonfire extravaganza of Snowy 2.0 pumping to nowhere, plus billion-dollar interconnectors, burning batteries and bird killing windmills.

France built 56 nuclear plants in just 15 years. Imagine how silly the conservatives will look if the Labor Party manages to build the first nuclear plant in Australia?

Image Cary Bass |

10 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

239 comments to Half of Australians already think nuclear power is a good idea

  • #
    Dave in the States

    Nuclear power is the litmus test to how much greens really think co2 is a real problem.

    641

    • #

      Dave
      One of the key things I learnt in business is to not accept people saying “we can’t do that”. I always say, when this rhetorical answer is given, “well what are we going to do to fix the problem?”

      Negativity whilst not offering a sensible alternative is just utter stupidity and leads nowhere.

      But the Greens and the Left are past masters at “NO” but offer no workable alternative.

      Renewables are a complete basket case as all here, except Simon and his fellow travellers, know. They are NOT an alternative at all and are only useful for niche supply, not to power the grid.

      Nuclear, particularly thorium, ticks all the boxes on all fronts. Opposition to it shows that the Left is just trying to destroy our way of life and ultimately cause mass death as millions freeze or sicken due to unavailable power. As such we need to disregard their madness and move forward with workable proper solutions like nuclear. If they hate it, well they can go and live off the grid in their own commune, but they need to stop wrecking our civilisation and others lives.

      431

      • #
        Ian

        “But the Greens and the Left are past masters at “NO” but offer no workable alternative.”

        They didn’t need to as the LNP did not use its political power over the 9 consecutive years . Abbott had a huge lead in 2013 and could have enacted any legislation he liked as with 33 seats in the Senate he needed only 3 from the parties such as Palmer United Party Nick Xenophon and the Liberal DemocraticParty. But the didn’t try as he was gutless. Turnbull in 2016 again had sufficient numbers in the Reps and the Senate to get legislation through but he was too concerned with the in fighting in the government largely stimulated by Abbott to consider anything else. Morrison was useless utterly useless. He couldn’t organise a piss-up in a pub. He had a majority in the Reps and with 35 seats in the Senate plus votes from One Nation and Alliance but never tried as he was too concerned with saving his own skin.

        So don’t blame the Left for the stupidity incompetence and unmitigated self interest from the Right Wing Party Australia has suffered under for nearly a decade. Thank God they’re gone for at least three years

        425

        • #
          Forrest Gardener

          Ian your argument amounts to “look over there it’s a squirrel”. Really low grade attempt at propaganda.

          241

          • #
            Ian

            Sorry for giving actual figures from the last three elections. Propaganda? No just the facts. Facts you clearly don’t like despite their coming from unimpeachable sources. You’re no better than Abbott. Turnbull and Morrison who also disregarded facts they didn’t like and look where it got them.

            317

            • #
              b.nice

              Fact is, we NEED extra coal fired power stations.

              We DON’T NEED any more unreliable power supplies.

              Do you really think your Lab/Green/Teal morons will embrace these facts ?

              270

            • #
              b.nice

              You are hardly one to talk about disregarding facts, Ian.

              And why have you not mentioned Rudd-Gillard-Rudd who did absolutely nothing of any use for Australia at all, ever.

              20

        • #
          David Maddison

          Ian, it almost sounds as if you actually support inexpensive, reliable energy?

          So where do you propose it come from if not your hated coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro (not SH2, an energy sink)?

          170

          • #
            Ian

            Ian, it almost sounds as if you actually support inexpensive, reliable energy? Of course I do. And I challenge you to find one comment of mine just one in the last twelve or so years that indicated I hated coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro. Of course I don’t.

            54

            • #
              b.nice

              Wow, Tell us Ian, did you vote for ON or UP ?

              Or did you vote for a party Lab/Green/Teals who are totally against reliable cheap electricity.

              Or did you vote for Liberals in the hope Dutton would get in and actually start taking the correct steps towards bringing reliability back to the electricity supply system?

              101

            • #
              b.nice

              Its great to see you totally against this “NetZero” nonsense, too.

              Maybe you do have a just a smidgen of rational thought capability left in you.!

              71

        • #
          b.nice

          Abbott wanted to remove the RET, and build new coal fired power, but couldn’t get them through the senate, because of the anti-CO2 far-left Greens and labor.

          Turnbull was never going to do anything rational in the way of electricity supply, he was a waffling leftist prat.

          Morrison went jelly-kneed once he became PM, too timid to take on the squawking far-leftist media.

          ANYONE that has ever supported the anti-CO2 leftist agenda is to blame for the current electricity supply problem.

          You don’t get to use any of your petty excuses.

          181

          • #
            Dennis

            The Abbot Government did manage to abolish Labor’s carbon tax and renewable energy surcharge, both 10% on electricity bills plus 10% GST on top and lower Labor’s RET. The Morrison Government scheduled the end of Labor’s RET and subsidies for 2030, amended company laws to force greater competition on pricing between electricity suppliers and reopened discussions on nuclear and primarily modular generators.

            The Morrison and Abbott governments had the same problems dealing with opposition dominated Senate, the Howard Government had a similar problem and their major economic reforms were modified in return for no longer exists Australian Democrats support in the Senate.

            50

        • #
          b.nice

          Now we have three years of even greater incompetence up Labor/Green/Teal.

          So incompetent that they are bound to totally destroy an already green-agenda undermined supply grid.

          Unless of course they do a total 180 and start building new coal fired power stations.

          That is what you are suggesting, isn’t it Ian.

          101

          • #
            Simon

            Coal stations emit greenhouse gases. What’s wrong with nuclear power? That is, after all, the topic of the day.

            26

            • #
              b.nice

              “emit greenhouse gases.”

              Coal fired power emit CO2.. which is a radiative gas, used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

              In the atmosphere, CO2 behaves nothing like a greenhouse, so calling it a greenhouse gas is a scientific misnomer, for activists only.

              CO2 is also absolutely essential to survival of life on the planet

              There is no scientific evidence that it does anything except enhance plant growth.

              You have proven that point very clearly with your abject inability to present any such evidence..

              Why bother with nuclear when it is way more expensive, we have plenty of coal, and nuclear doesn’t feed the planet. ?

              100

            • #
              b.nice

              Oh , and elsewhere , I said very clearly that I have nothing against using nuclear.

              We just don’t need to go to that expense now, or probably not in the 100 or more years.

              10

        • #
          b.nice

          You thought the leftist Turnbull and the wimpy do-nothing Morrison were incompetent…

          With your crowd of Lab/Green/Teal morons in charge…

          you ain’t seen nothing yet.

          131

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘Thank God they’re gone for at least three years.’

          Its going to be fun watching democracy at work, with a strong Opposition we know the system is healthy.

          10

        • #
          Ted1

          Ian, you display a very selective memory.

          Tony Abbott had what should have been a landslide mandate to abolish the carbon tax and slash the reckless spending.

          However the Palmer United Party, campaigning as more conservative than the coalition, won four seats in the senate, giving them the balance of power. They then, for no apparent good reason, acted as proxies for Al Gore, to block Abbott’s reforms and thwart his landslide mandate.

          There were two “carbon taxes”. Al Gore only needed one.

          20

      • #
        Simon

        You can’t blame Labor or the Greens for not implementing nuclear because they weren’t in power. You also can’t claim that renewables are a ‘complete basket case’ when they make up a significant proportion of total supply; even in countries with higher populations, less space, and less hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal potential than Australia. The Coalition was a government that not only did nothing but actively obstructed any attempts to build a diverse and decentralised smart grid.
        https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/renewable-in-electricity-production-share.html

        221

        • #
          b.nice

          ” nuclear because they weren’t in power”

          Can you imagine the caterwauling from the far left even at the suggestion. !!

          The states are responsible for electricity, and the greens/labor have blocked any attempt at increasing the reliability using coal fired power

          SA (leftists) destroyed their coal fired power.

          Victoria (Leftists) destroyed Hazelwood)

          NSW have a moronic AGW green shill as energy minister.

          Qld, leftists have blocked coal mining and gas fired power stations.

          But it is great that you now agree with Tony Abbot and want to remove the RET and build extra coal fired power stations. 🙂

          120

        • #
          b.nice

          “they make up a significant proportion of total supply;”

          You are going to post that link to countries with major amounts of HYDRO , aren’t you.

          EVERY country that has more than a small amount of wind and solar has very high electricity prices, and grids that are tottering on the edge of collapse.

          So yes, wind and solar are a ‘complete basket case’ when it comes to grid supply.

          100

          • #
            Simon

            Hydro is a renewable, assuming rainfall patterns stay the same. The great thing about renewables is that the marginal cost is almost zero, because you are not paying for fuel. Yes, you need backup but you don’t need to run it all of the time. There is no gas shortage, but there is no incentive to sell that domestically when you can make much more in export. Burning brown coal for electricity is an 18th century technology, it has to stay in the ground unless there is significant carbon capture. Imagine if every house had a 60 KW battery at home, that’s easily a week’s power generated by the wind and sun. That’s not a pipe dream, your average EV has a battery of that size.

            115

            • #
              DLK

              Imagine if every house had a 60 KW battery at home

              yes, just imagine…

              Electric cars have a dirty little recycling problem — batteries

              . Yes, you need backup but you don’t need to run it all of the time.

              yes, you do need to run the backup all the time.

              Burning brown coal for electricity is an 18th century technology

              and windmills are a mid-to-late 7th century and solar power, well, the sun pretty much ‘runs’ everything on Earth.

              brown coal for electricity… has to stay in the ground unless there is significant carbon capture

              why?

              has the null hypothesis that warming (as fractional as it appears to be) is natural ever been shown to be incorrect?

              nope (or if you think otherwise, please cite evidence).

              140

            • #
              b.nice

              Topic here is wind and solar.. UNRELIABLES.

              Please stay on topic and stop the petty attempts at distraction.

              There is absolutely zero need for any sort of “carbon dioxide capture”

              Carbon dioxide is TOTALLY beneficial to all life on Earth, in fact its ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. !

              Great to see you saying we should remove the RET and remove all subsidies for unreliables because they are so cheap.

              Then you can explain how EVERY country with a big infection of parasitic wind and solar, has the very expensive electricity.

              100

              • #
                OldOzzie

                Mix Summary (8 June 2022 – 15:50)

                https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem#price-demand

                click on fuel mix

                Solar/Wind 20%

                Black Coal/Brown Coal/Gas 68%

                20

              • #
                Simon

                Imagine how expensive your power bill would be if that 20%. of solar and wind wasn’t available.

                29

              • #
                b.nice

                You mean like 20 years ago.. when there was mainly just coal, prices were much much lower in terms of everything else.

                I don’t need to “imagine” .. I can remember..

                The reason for current high prices is because they have wasted huge amounts of money on wind, solar and the resultant need for stabilisation and other infrastructure, without keeping up the supply of baseload coal to where it needs to be.

                The whole current situation is totally and completely because of the agenda to put parasitic unreliables into the grid.

                And ignorant, moronic people, just like you, think there should be more…. It really is a massive case of absolute imbecility.

                100

              • #
                DLK

                Imagine how expensive your power bill would be if that 20%. of solar and wind wasn’t available

                imagine how cheap your power bill would be if that 20% of solar and wind wasn’t there.

                60

            • #
              b.nice

              “Imagine if every house had a 60 KW battery at home”

              WOW , you are asking people to strip mine the whole Earth, and then create huge amounts of pollution manufacturing those batteries, then replacing them every 3-4 years.

              You really do hate this planet, and every creature living on it, don’t you !

              140

              • #
                Simon

                There is no shortage of lithium, Australia is sitting on a huge potential store. Most mining is controlled by Chinese interests, whose ESG is lousy; that needs to change. Batteries are recyclable, the essential elements are still present. Economies of scale are required and that is coming. The volume of mining required is tiny compared to that of coal.

                01

              • #
                b.nice

                Simon again comments from ignorance and wishful thinking

                I suggest you what watch that Michael Moore film and try to learn something.

                The mining of constituents for batteries and the environmental and human degradation involved at all stages of production is horrific.

                But cretins like simon.. JUST DON’T CARE.

                00

            • #
              RickWill

              Albo has solved global warming. Took just two weeks.

              Melbourne has its coldest start to June since 1949. I do not remember that and was in another location but how did people stay warm before heat pumps and electricity.

              50

        • #
          b.nice

          Thank goodness the Liberal governments have slowed down the introduction of unreliable electricity supplies onto the grid.

          Things would have been far worse than now, much sooner.

          The very last thing we need at the moment is more wind and solar, it would just exacerbate a bad situation.

          We need to fix those old coal fired power stations and start building some new ones.. NOW.

          The green sluime agenda has to get out the way so banks etc can provide finance and loans to make that happen.

          80

        • #
          DLK

          You also can’t claim that renewables are a ‘complete basket case’ when they make up a significant proportion of total supply;

          of course you can.
          1. baseload power has to run 24/7.
          2. wind and solar work intermittently when sun shines or wind blows.
          3. unreliables have substantially increased the cost of baseload power due to ‘green plating’ the power grid to allow for the existence of said unreliables.

          so:
          -wind and solar is parasitic on the the existence of baseload power.
          -said baseload power runs 24/7 anyway, so wind and solar are completely redundant
          -‘green power’ thus makes electricity more expensive whilst not reducing ‘carbon’ emissions.

          so yes, they are a complete basket case,
          completely useless,
          unless, i suppose, you are a greenie and want to feel good about virtue signalling to the world (even though the net carbon reductions of such signalling will effectively be nil).

          210

          • #
            DLK

            see, e.g.

            “…wind and solar rose from 68 to 116 billion kwh, yet this rise of 48 billion kwh had no effect on the use of fossil fuels to generate power in Germany”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/01/can-wind-and-solar-replace-fossil-fuels/

            70

          • #
            Simon

            Gas can be turned off and on at short notice. Coal can’t. That is the definition of dispatchable.

            27

            • #
              b.nice

              Wrong again…. Dispatchable mean “available when needed”

              Seriously, learn some basic stuff for once, and stop making up your own definitions.

              Coal is there, always available, just churns on and on, covering a large proportion of Australia’s electrical needs.

              It never needs to be turned “on and off”, just follow the natural demand load…

              You know, like it has for decades before unreliable parasitics were added to the grid.

              Only reason it is now required to respond more rapidly, is because of those erratic unreliables on the grid.

              Hence the need for gas peakers, hence the cost rises since coal has been forced off the grid by the deliberate destruction of coal fired power.

              90

              • #
                Simon

                A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand.
                https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Dispatchable_source_of_electricity
                Coal is included in that definition but you keep telling me that coal can’t be turned off.

                25

              • #
                b.nice

                “in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand.”

                Which is EXACTLY what coal has done for most of the last 50 or more years.

                Coal doesn’t ever need to be turned off, it just does the massive bulk of the real heavy constant baseload that the grid requires.

                In fact, it is COAL that provides the massive amount of frequency stability that the grid requires.

                Without it, nothing else would work. Only a moronic idiot would want to turn coal off. !

                Coal power is dispatchable.. wind and solar ARE NOT.. they are parasites, just like you..

                50

              • #
                b.nice

                “Coal is included in that definition”

                Yes, even your own link proves you are completely wrong..

                Seems to be a trait of yours, doesn’t it…… proving yourself wrong.

                D’OH ! Simple by name, simple by nature.

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                Please show us where in the past 48 hours coal has needed to be turned off..

                Also note how it follows demand quite easily.

                00

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Simon, thank you for your excellent imitation of a parrot.
              Now try to find out about Closed Cycle gas (cheaper (but still more than coal) but more efficient hence lower emissions) and Open Cycle gas (less efficient hence higher emissions and cost). The emissions from the latter are as high (or possibly marginally higher) than the latest coal fired technology, and they are way more expensive if run in intermittent mode (at least $300 a MWh) so despite your ‘thought’ the mix of variable wind and variable gas increases costs and doesn’t reduce emissions anywhere near enough to justify them.

              50

            • #
              DLK

              Gas can be turned off and on at short notice. Coal can’t. That is the definition of dispatchable.

              and the baseload is invariable minimum supply.
              in other words, if you want the lights on, it cannot be turned off.

              30

            • #
              b.nice

              LOL

              South Australia now:

              1360MW GAS
              173MW Diesel

              219MW Wind
              60MW Battery (charged by gas)
              532MW Imported

              SA must be thanking their stars that they have access to GAS and DIESEL on demand, hey simple.

              Reliable, dispatchable fossil fuels.. writ large yet again

              40

              • #
                b.nice

                6 minutes later.. The battery has spent its load !… and is being recharged… using mostly gas fired electricity.

                It really gets embarrassing for wind and solar a lot of the time, doesn’t it simple one.

                20

        • #
          David Maddison

          Simon, more unreliables means higher consumer electricity prices. Do you have a counter-example?

          Also, I, as a voluntary charity worker, want to ask you what you have to say to the people I visit who are miserably cold in their own homes in places like Melbournistan because they can’t afford electricity or gas which is no longer affordable due to unreliables subsidies?

          Why would anyone support such cruelty?

          140

          • #
            Simon

            High gas, coal and oil prices have global causes. Negligible (sometimes even negative) renewable power prices ease the burden a little. The most expensive marginal supplier electricity is gas and coal because the generator has to pay for the fuel. You have cause and effect the wrong way around.

            220

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Conversely, the inverse can often be applied in these situations to very useful effect.

              60

            • #
              Sceptical+Sam

              The reason Victoria doesn’t have sufficient gas is because the destructive green/left Labor government of Victoria has banned gas exploration and development.

              That has nothing to do with “global causes”.

              The Victorians are getting what they voted for. Excellent. Democracy at work. May they freeze until they grow up.

              160

            • #
              b.nice

              “renewable power prices ease the burden a little”

              Then why do the countries with the largest wind and solar percentage have the highest electricity prices?

              Have you learnt absolutely NOTHING about the need for reliability and stability, and the HUGE costs needed to keep those viable in an unreliable grid.

              Are you incapable of even the most basic comprehension?

              120

            • #
              b.nice

              “has to pay for the fuel.”

              And yet for decades while we just had coal fired power in the main states, electricity costs were much much lower and more stable than now.

              Costs started creeping up as soon as unreliables started to be built into the gird.

              So again.. you are proven to be totally wrong through ignorance,

              … or deliberately pushing garbage you know is incorrect… ie lying through your teeth as usual.

              120

        • #
          Dennis

          Have you considered why minor parties are keen on winning Senate seats?

          It’s known as holding balance of power under various circumstances, in other words having the votes to give Union Labor or Coalition support in return for favours.

          30

        • #

          ” You can’t blame Labor or the Greens for not implementing nuclear because they weren’t in power ”

          Labor and the Greens are vehemently opposed to nuclear power generation as a matter of hardline party policy regardless of whether Labor or the Greens are in power or not .Simon knows this but sophistry and deceit are just normalized in his mind and the framework of his specious ridiculous arguments

          00

        • #
          Ted1

          Simon, the Greens hold immense power to block legislation when they hold the balance of power in the senate.

          00

    • #
      DLK

      the green voter base will never accept nuclear.

      having said that, nuclear power stations should be built in green electorates, because their voting patterns have necessitated their implementation.

      261

      • #
        Terry

        nuclear power stations should be built in green electorates…

        NO! I want a Tiny Modular Reactor buried in my backyard. Let the Greens have their massive Wind Turbines (Monuments to Stupidity) in their own electorates.

        Nuclear power will eventually be like PC’s (Personal Computers) – each with their own.

        I am happy to sell any excess energy (at market rates, of course) to the Luddites connected to their “green grid”

        90

    • #
      John

      That’s true.

      The ban on nuclear is a multi-party ban that John Howard’s government put in place in order to “do a deal” regards getting some other legislation passed through the parliament, legislation regards upgrading the Lucas Heights reactor that produces material for medical procedures. It probably seemed a reasonable idea at the time:

      (a) no-one was getting hysterical about climate and CO2 emissions
      (b) there was no foreseeable possible need for nuclear in Australia (Maybe there’d be a need in 50 years or more by which time Howard and fellow MPs would be long gone.)
      (c) there was a need for Lucas Heights to keep operating because the radioactive substances it created were used to treat cancers.

      The issue now is how to get the ban lifted. If the ban was worded in a way that said only the parties that signed the ban could lift it then that might exclude the Greens and many other MPs. If it’s worded to say that each party in parliament must agree to lift it then Australia will be hog-tied by certain parties’ ideologies rather than act according to science and facts.

      211

    • #
      Ross

      Your right Dave, I don’t think there is a snowflake in hells chance of nuclear ever getting up in Australia. For a myriad of reasons. But if any of the warmist climatistas were truly honest, they would be at least trying to encourage its development.

      171

      • #
        Terry

        warmist climatistas were truly honest

        Might as well “believe” in renewables, Unicorns, and Fairy Dust if we’re going to pretend this is a possibility…

        50

        • #
          Honk R Smith

          Honesty?
          Has anyone noticed?
          Once upon a time, one could say there were different but mostly honest disagreements.
          With exaggeration.
          Now, again oddly accelerated by Trump Ate Our Brains Syndrome, one side dropped any pretense, and has gone into full tilt in your face deception.
          Mostly made possible by what seems to be an internationally coordinated cooperate media ‘repeat the lie and it becomes TRUTH’
          propaganda conglomerate.
          That keeps dominating debate as they bleed viewers.
          It causes one to unwillingly grow a Tin Foil Hat.

          10

    • #
      Geoff+Croker

      Better to just go with coal. It works. We have plenty.

      90

  • #

    Nearly half of the respondents didn’t want nuclear so what do they expect to use for power?

    211

    • #
      • #
        John Hultquist

        Rachel Wolfe is a general assignment reporter for Life & Work covering consumer trends. Previously, she edited the Gear & Gadgets vertical on Off Duty. From her perch in New Orleans, . . .

        This is not a WSJ editorial. Rather a writer and friend went from New Orleans and back with great difficulty, mental anguish and physical discomfort. The car, a brand-new Kia EV6 she rented, seemed to work about as well as one might expect. It was the charging — or lack thereof — that caused the problems.
        Interestingly, EVs work better in urban areas where stop-&-go recharges the battery. Open road driving — little breaking — is missed by most people.
        Anyway, she was happy to return to her ICE auto.

        30

      • #
        Dennis

        Recently my builder son was told by a client that with two EV in the family he wanted to install the best capacity solar panel system available because the grid cost was much higher than he had anticipated believing the sales pitch about running costs being lower with EV.

        50

    • #
      YallaYPoora Kid

      Other people’s money for their feel good experience. Unfortunately all that money could have gone to something useful and productive.

      01

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      If you build it … it MIGHT work Field of Dreams.

      00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    We have enough coal, gas, and hydro electricity to power all the eastern states right now. It’s the renewables that are causing the “energy crisis”. See my post at https://wordpress.com/post/kenskingdom.wordpress.com/10316

    331

    • #
      b.nice

      Completely agree.

      And while I have no issues with nuclear, it just isn’t necessary.

      Get those down coal units fixed by providing finance and long term certainty.

      (nobody is going to fix something under the threat of imminent closure.)

      Then add 3 or 4 new HELE coalies along the eastern seaboard. It would be far cheaper than nuclear.

      241

      • #
        Sambar

        Its the Biden principle of economics.
        Threaten oil and gas producers with law suits, restrict available areas so exploration is limited and unnecessarily expensible , give no surety of tenure and then blame these companies for high petrol and gas prices. Then further threaten these same companies with prosecution for lack of supply, publicly accuse these companies of price gouging and demonise them as much as possible and then blame these companies for “failing to respond ” when his government told them to. Yep all of this works. Sounds just a little bit like Victoriastan.

        101

      • #
        Ian

        “Get those down coal units fixed by providing finance and long term certainty.

        Why during the last 9 years did your pitiful right wing government not do that?

        212

        • #
          b.nice

          Abbot tried but was constantly undermined from the leftists within his own party, and was constantly having to defend against the far-left agenda that got ramped up to manic screeching levels as son as he got in…

          Just like Trump, who was forced to go on the defense against fraudulent Democrat claims

          Turnbull was a, leftist prat..

          Morrison was a wimp who refuse to take on the far-left ranting about climate..

          It is great to see you knowing that the Lab/Green/teal ooze absolutely needs to start building more coal fired power.

          Do you really think they will? Or are you just mouthing off as you try to run away from your leftist CO2 hatred.

          50

          • #
            Dennis

            Be specific, the LINO left Turnbull side faction that call themselves privately “Black Hand” faction.

            The LINO left undermines Opposition Leader Abbott 2009 to 2013 and Prime Minister Abbott 2013 to 2015, “relentless negativity” including character assassination attempts, and used the Union Movement created GetUp actist organisation to get Abbott for them, plus Union Labor on the team. The same mob pursued PM Morrison and recently since the election the Union Labor advertising agency has admitted that the tactic was to play the man (Morrison) first and foremost and then the Coalition that he was leading.

            In both examples too many voters accepted the deception and even helped to spread the damaging stories.

            44

            • #
              Dennis

              Apparently two people believe my comment is inaccurate?

              Please post why and in detail please because I like to know why I am wrong if I am wrong.

              23

        • #
          b.nice

          Victoria.. leftists destroyed Hazelwood

          NSW. leftist Liberals have a completely moronic greenie in charge of Energy.

          QLD leftists.. stopping new gas fired power stations

          SA Leftist destroyed their coal fired power.

          You are making petty, ignorant comments again, Ian.

          91

          • #
            Dennis

            One gas fired and one coal fired power station proposed by the Morrison Government including an offer to underwrite finance for the coal fired power station for private sector investors because bankers wont finance coal related business ventures including mines.

            70

            • #
              b.nice

              Blocked, or not taken up, by LEFTIST governments.

              Yep.. the absolute major cause of the current situation is the green slime anti-CO2 agenda. ie the destruction of Australia’s electricity supplies.

              30

          • #
            Ian

            Abbot tried but was constantly undermined from the leftists within his own party, and was constantly having to defend against the far-left agenda that got ramped up to manic screeching levels as son as he got in…

            Here’s another petty ignorant comment for you.

            Why did your hero Abbott say in 2019 that Australia should stay in the Paris Agreement? And, he hasn’t as yet retracted that statement. Why not?

            11

            • #
              b.nice

              Petty attempt at distraction again, hey Ian

              Anyone that was paying any attention knows that TA was hounded by the left the second he got in.

              .. All that gay marriage crap, all the ABC attacks about nothing..

              Constant sliming just to make it difficult to get anything done while Turnbull little group undermined him from behind.

              And why the continued malinformation. TA said we should only be in it if everyone else was.

              Paris Agreement is a totally meaningless piece of garbage anyway.. great to see that you think we should withdraw immediately.

              Yet again, you have managed another comment based on gross ignorance.

              Its great to see you, further up the thread, agreeing with TA that we should remove the RET and strongly support coal fired power.

              Great to see you are also against all the NetZero crap.

              00

        • #
          b.nice

          So, Ian, Have you written to Albo or Bandt yet,(or any of the Teals), to say you request that they help provide finance to build new coal fired power stations?

          Do you really, even in your most feeble imaginings, think that the Lab/green/teals will do what needs to be done ?

          41

          • #
            Ian

            So, Ian, Have you written to Albo or Bandt yet,(or any of the Teals), to say you request that they help provide finance to build new coal fired power stations?

            Of course I have. And surely you have too. If not, why not?

            01

            • #
              b.nice

              LOL.. such a funny little man. !

              00

            • #
              b.nice

              The Lab/Green/teals are your people.. you have to persuade them to do the sensible thing..

              ( or did you vote UP or ON?.. you never did answer 😉 )

              I have had a few chats with my local member quite recently, told him exactly what I think.

              Great that you agree that we should drop the RET, stop building wind and solar unreliability into the grid, and concentrate on strengthening and upgrading our coal fired fleet.

              You do agree… don’t you! 😉

              00

            • #
              b.nice

              Come on Ian, even with all your worthless egotism, do you really think you can persuade Lab/green/teals to stop this unreliable wind and solar nonsense and give the coal fired power stations 20+ years certainty so they can fix or update their fleet ?

              00

        • #
          ando

          Can you define what you think right wing means and how the LNP fits that definition?
          They elected champagne socialist and alp reject turnbull to lead them, legalised homosexual ‘marriage’, presided over big govt, big spending, big debt, big abc, net zero (jobs) nonsense, etc, etc, etc
          To say this is right wing, is nothing short of delusional.

          20

          • #
            b.nice

            “To say this is right wing, is nothing short of delusional.”

            That’s Ian you are talking to.. so … yes. !

            00

      • #
        Bob Close

        Whilst I generally agree with your comments and this one in particular, I really believe that little action will happen in Australia to restore fossil fuels back to their optimal baseload requirement, until major parts of industry and significant periods of power outage are experienced by inner city Green and Teal voters. When people cannot afford petrol prices, cannot get to work, can’t use their electronic gadgets including phones etc.
        Only then will the penny drop that their environmental views and woke ignorance particularly about science and climate in general has caused this dire self-imposed energy emergency situation.
        Currently the EU and UK are beginning to experience energy hardship and their long held climate/energy views and priorities are being forced to rapidly change due to the Ukrainian war, and the real consequences of their crazy net zero policies that they cannot afford and don’t know how to achieve in any case.

        Australia does not need to feel guilty about its fossil fuel generated economy, if it was really smart it could lead the world out of this whole climate mess, by rejecting all the UN climate treaties, officially recognize that the UN IPCC science has not established that CO2 is causing any significant climate change, it is a vital plant food. Modern global warming is natural and in any case moderated by water vapour and ocean current feedbacks, so we cannot have decade scale rapid 2-5C warming as envisaged by the biased GCM’s alarmist modelers create. Once the public understands that the climate emergency has been artificially created by left leaning environmental and ecological activists, who have a deluded planetary moral agenda backed by opportunist politicians and greedy businessmen and financiers, they will opt out of the process and we can get back to a more normal reality of utilizing the resource gifts we have to best purpose for the future.

        00

    • #
  • #
    Mike+of+NQ

    You say the Greens will never let it happen. Maybe, but I think for the people who actually vote Green or Teal, it could be a different matter if the facts are laid out by someone brave enough to promote it. Smallest energy footprint, not propped up by forced child labor, ethnic slavery or aggressive regimes, lowest emissions of any source, does not slice and dice native birds, does not fry lizards or start bush fires, lowest level of waste by a factor of 1000 times etc. Nuclear Waste was a problem in the past but with current technologies available, it doesn’t have to be, it can even be reused to make nuclear batteries for space travel.

    210

    • #
      David Maddison

      Arguably, the only good thing Morrison did during his failed Prime Ministership was to cancel the bizarre diesel submarine contract of the Turnbull regime (at huge expense) and choose to acquire nuclear subs.

      I don’t know why Morrison saw common sense, that was out of character for any Australian PM. Perhaps President Trump had a word to him?

      I am concerned that the Alba-sleazy regime might cancel the nuclear sub contract because (a) “nuclear bad” and (b) to appease the Chicomms who objected to the purchase and (c) also for Alba-sleazy to demonstrate his loyalty to the Chicomms and that he is “their man in Canberra”.

      What I found interesting was that when the nuclear announcement was made by Morrison, there was virtually no opposition. The opposition to all things “nuclear” the government was terrified of, never materialised.

      251

      • #
        David Maddison

        That wasn’t meant to be a reply to Mike but a new comment.

        51

      • #
        ColA

        David,

        Agreed, but it was too late at that stage, Scomo had lost his nerve to the Climate goons and kowtowed to his “You must be elected (because we need our cash-cow trough full!)” advisers.
        When most Australians said good job to dump the diesel subs he lost the ticker to stand up and say the obvious “Nuclear is the energy future” in stead he bent over and shafted himself on the Net Zero 50 pitard! It became just another election lost on Climate Change, this time because he would not prosecute the bloody obvious!!

        251

      • #
        Graham Richards

        Morrison wouldn’t mention nuclear or he’d have been in trouble with the WEF & the UN.
        He’s as much a woke wonder as the all the other snowflakes.

        Labor have already imposed their carbon tax by stealth. The current crisis has been created by using Ukraine for their smoke & mirrors act.

        161

        • #
          Dennis

          You are wrong, PM Morrison negotiated with our UK and US allies to equip the RAN with nuclear powered submarines and later was in discussion with the UK Government and Rolls Royce UK regarding nuclear modular generators for Australia.

          Obviously the Morrison Government expected to convince Union Labor to support lifting of the ban on nuclear, as they did for the nuclear submarine project announced.

          You are one of the problems, people who repeat the relentless negativity and probably ignoring that it is effectively helping Union Labor and other opposition, including the LINO left.i

          13

  • #
    Lawrie

    To make matters worse there were several National party members that I know of who do support Nuclear and have pushed it in the party room. Naturally they were ignored and moved to the back bench. Can’t have sensible people making sensible comment when we are fighting the Teals and Greens by trying to be more like them. Littleproud will have little to be proud of when he is replaced for being a complete waste of space. Morrison of course was just another version of Turnbull and both were just as disloyal when it came to the man who could save the Coalition-Abbott.

    221

    • #
      Dennis

      Morrison is centre right, Turnbull is centre left and therefore in Union Labor territory, Tony Abbott for example is centre right and a traditional Liberal Party of Australia member.

      It was PM Morrison who led the Federal Executive to move in on the NSW State Executive to overturn decisions the LINO there had made.

      If people took more notice of politics our nation would be better off politically, Turnbull made it clear that he was no friend of Morrison after Morrison became PM in late 2018, when PM Morrison gave Turnbull representative roles to attend conferences on behalf of the Morrison Government overseas on both occasions Turnbull embarrassed the Morrison Government and the PM stated that there would not be a third opportunity for Turnbull. When Morrison became PM former PM Turnbull made fun of him saying that all Morrison wanted was to get his backside on the rear seat of the prime ministerial official car. Various other examples of LINO undermining Morrison.

      31

  • #
    Rosco

    Anyone who is terrified of 420 molecules of CO2 and less than 2 molecules of methane in every million molecules of ordinary air is gullible – one born every minute as PT Barnum was reputed to have said.

    But even if you believe this nonsense just how is Australia responsible for more than 1% ?

    If you simply must be terrified of atmospheric gases there are 2 candidates that should give you nightmares – if you’re that gullible.

    Firstly, how about Oxygen – responsible for ALL fires and a large amount of destruction through oxidation processes – for example rust.

    Surely we should limit the concentration of this destructive gas.

    Secondly, how about water vapour – responsible for ALL meterological events – floods, cyclones etc etc.

    Funnily enough “Green” policy is to reduce the emissions of harmless, beneficial CO2 because of its small “Greenhouse Effect” and replace it with the mother of all “Greenhouse Gases” through, for example the hydrogen economy, water vapour (truly an oxymoron if ever there was one).

    Yes I know water vapour isn’t “long lived” emissions but artificially increasing the natural concentrations will have a major impact – climate experts tell us this must be true through positive feedbacks ! CO2 is trivial – it’s the positive feedback through water vapour that drive all the hopeless models !

    Idiotic !

    311

    • #
      Terry

      Anyone who is terrified of 420 molecules of CO2…

      They are not terrified of molecules, nor CO2. They have no idea what either is; too “Sciencey” for them. They prefer to heed “THE science”, which includes being absolved of all agency and responsibility for one’s own thinking – it’s just “easier” that way.

      No, they ARE terrified of being ostracized by the herd should they dare to demonstrate insufficient fealty to “The Narrative”/”The Current Thing”.

      A flock of lamentable, pitiful, obsequious childults.

      This is why the same psychosis has manifested itself through a myriad of publicly acceptable absurdities, from The Cult of Climate, “Renewables”, Keynesian economics, Pandemic Porn, Race/Indentity Politics, the “equality” of outcome malarkey….and the list goes on. (and on and on and on……)

      70

      • #
        John Hultquist

        ” They have no idea what either is; ”

        They should know this: ” As a linear triatomic molecule, CO2 has four vibrational modes ”

        Anyone talking about global warming should be able to explain what this means.

        40

    • #
      ando

      I have yet to come across a virtue signaller who thinks we need to do something about climate change, that knows how much co2 is in the atmosphere. Nor are they prepared to forgo any of the luxuries made possible through fossil fuels. ‘But all the scientists said’….Name one….Blank stare. Cringe worthy, gullible fools, exposed in about 10 seconds – fun game to play at parties and family gatherings.

      40

  • #

    Being anti-nuclear with the information available on the internet, is to be anti-human or perhaps mearly a climate change alarmist lemming at best. Cheap plentiful energy is the foundation for prosperity and the best way to lift the poor out of poverty. High energy prices hit the poorest the hardest.

    200

    • #
      Klem

      Cheap and plentiful energy is the lifeblood of the Capitalist system, that’s why no nuke plants will be built in Oz as long as the Marxists are in power.

      Never vote Left, folks. Like ever.

      131

    • #
      David Maddison

      Glen, ignorance is a conscious choice.

      Just as someone who makes a conscious choice to drink and drive is considered liable for any harm they may do, so too must people who choose to be ignorant be held liable for the harm they cause.

      50

  • #
    Lawrie

    Today the so called Energy Ministers are gathering to solve the energy problem. Led by Chris Bowen and spurred on by Matt Kean I am sure there will be a great result that will make us all much better off. I can’t wait for the message from on high as Chris Bowen comes down from the mountain with the solution written on a slab of polystyrene.

    220

    • #
      David Maddison

      Australia has no “energy ministers”.

      They are “energy starvation” ministers,

      Their objective is to destroy what little we have left of Australia’s once bountiful, reliable and inexpensive energy supply.

      Ha! As I type this, there is an AGL advertisement for a “virtual power plant” for solar panels and batteries in every home.

      190

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Don’t know anything about Mr Bowen, but the thought of having Mr. Kean advising on “energy” is frightening.
      The apex of tokenism; the energy manager you have when you aren’t having an energy manager.

      Nominally, Mr. Kean owes his position to the need of Mr. Perrottet to get a working majority but considering Mr Ps father’s interests, maybe it’s just part of the whole plan.

      What’s going on.

      140

      • #
        Ross

        Bowen was the clown show or Immigration minister in the last Labor government. We had a problem with illegal boat arrivals at the time. Poor little Chris made lots of statements about “push pull factors” and that we couldn’t do boat turn arounds. The more he talked the more boats that arrived. Then change of government to Abbott/LNP and the illegal boats stopped within months. He’s useless, in other words. Expect the same with energy.

        141

        • #
          Ross

          Case in point – This is the latest Chris Bowen tweet. “After nine years of energy policy chaos and rejection of the cheapest form of energy (renewables) the National Party thinks the answer to high prices is the most expensive form of energy..,nuclear”. This clown thinks ruinables are the cheapest form of energy. But I suppose you have to dissect what he classes as “renewables”. Maybe, it’s the international definition that includes biomass, hydro etc.

          20

          • #
            Lawrie

            I guarantee he does not include backup, transmission nor subsidies in his calculation. Calculation? He cannot calculate either. He was the genius that thought removing franking credits was a great idea and that little mathematical problem cost the ALP the election when added to an electric car in every garage.

            30

    • #
      Terry

      The more they “solve” the greater the problem becomes.

      I am sure just a few more litres of fuel will help extinguish the inferno.

      These are unserious people voted into power by unserious people – there will be no problems “solved” here today.

      They still haven’t figured out what the problem is – indeed the problem, for them, is a feature, not a bug.

      They go through the “Concern Pantomime” only to preserve their status as harbingers of energy poverty (and all of its consequences).

      AEMO promises to be suitably shocked once the lights go out; much like the RBA is suitably shocked by inflation (ha, who knew printing money did this?) and is stoically conducting economic brain surgery with a sledgehammer.

      Relax everyone. We’re in great hands…

      50

    • #
      Dennis

      Isn’t now obvious that dopey politicians didn’t see the crisis coming as they pursued the exercise in futility and economic vandalism called transition to renewable energy?

      20

  • #
    Robber

    Dr Ziggy Switkowski headed up a federal review on nuclear power in 2006.
    Following a referral from the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, the Hon Angus Taylor MP, the Committee resolved on 6 August 2019 to conduct an inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. Switowski said though nuclear power had “no social licence at this time” the legislative ban against it should “absolutely” be abolished. “We really should not be making decisions in 2019 based on legislation passed in 1999 reflecting the views of 1979,” he said.
    He reiterated his belief that the window for large-scale nuclear plants had closed, a view shared by Taylor, but said he believed there would be an opportunity for small modular reactors, known as SMRs, of between 60 and about 200 megawatts.
    “Given that Australia would begin from a standing start, the first reactor of any commercial scale would take about 15 years to reach normal operation and generate revenues,” Switkowski said.

    Nuclear stations under construction. in Turkey, UK, Japan, Bangladesh, China.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition announced on 30 May 2011, that Germany’s 17 nuclear power stations will be shut down by 2022.

    France has announced plans to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors. Construction will commence in 2028, and the first new reactor could be commissioned by 2035.

    150

    • #
      Graeme#4

      The SMRs being proposed by RR were 440 MW and should cost around A$3.3bn. Considering we waste around $7bn every year in subsidising useless and unreliable renewables, we could stop the subsidies and purchase two of these SMRs every year.

      30

  • #
    Neville

    There’s only one practical solution for Aussies and that’s more BASE-LOAD coal or gas and ASAP.
    Nuclear would be great for the future but we know that even if we gave the OK today it would take at least 15 to 20 years to build the first sizable reactor.
    I hope Jo and others are carefully watching the Bowen clown and his state counterparts and see what their answer is for our future?
    So far we’ve been told that 20 MORE billion $ should be wasted on more TOXIC, UNRELIABLE S & W infrastructure for our future energy needs.
    So we know that we have no coherent understanding from these left wing loonies and Aussies will be even more vulnerable in the coming decades.

    170

    • #
      el+gordo

      Dutton will use nuclear power as a strategy to split Labor.

      100

      • #
        David Maddison

        Why would the issue of nuclear power split Labor?

        Who in the ALP believes in inexpensive, reliable power? Plus they are opposed to almost all things “nuclear”.

        80

        • #
          el+gordo

          The ALP has been taken over by moderates in green garb, just a wiff of going nuclear will start a debate in the MSM. and split the party.

          50

    • #
      b.nice

      Australia can’t really do baseload gas until they get a whole lot more extraction happening. (or cut down exports)

      NSW might just be waking up and allowing the Narrabri site to go ahead.

      Victoria are still under far-leftist climate wannabee, and as a consequence, are still being really dumb about it .

      SA need more of their current gas for when wind has a break.

      60

      • #
        Dennis

        I find it frustrating that our Federation of States, Commonwealth of Australia, States being the former British Colonial Governments here, States established the Federal Government but retained most of the areas of responsibility and powers they had as Colonial Governments, has become a patchwork of mini-republics for most, at least it almost looks like that.

        No coordination and cooperation more often than not, State owned lands and waterways, State planning permission for mines, dams, power stations, wind and solar sites, and many more examples, but too often different decisions and policies State to State.

        50

        • #
          Dennis

          Another example is vaccine mandates, I read today in The Daily Telegraph that the NSW Premier is calling for the Department of Health to drop vaccine mandates, another example of the mess we are in.

          41

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Once the companies start producing the SMRs in quantity, I would expect that their lead times would significantly reduce.

      20

  • #
    robert rosicka

    After all the $Billions spent on wind , solar and batteries in South Australia’s mad rush to net zero they are at this moment running on 91% fossil fuel . The weather isn’t right today .They sure could use a nuclear reactor about now .

    170

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Nuclear power is the way to go, not renewables

    1 Renewables are expensive, unreliable, short life

    Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) are hugely expensive, unreliable and have short operating lives (e.g. 15 to 30 years). And they require huge energy storage capacity.

    The disposal costs for solar panels and wind turbines are very high, adding to the cost of the electricity they generate.

    The transmission costs are huge because the transmission line to each renewable plant must be sized to carry the full output of each plant but, on average, transmit only 15% to 35% of the output capacity of solar and wind plants.

    Also, the transmission lines must be very long because the renewable plants are widely dispersed in country areas away from where the power is used. The transmission lines need to run to energy storage sites (pumped hydro and batteries) and from the energy storage sites to the areas where the power is required.

    The transmission system will become increasingly vulnerable to disruption by foreign powers. The economic cost of disruption can be huge as it disrupts manufacturing and transport.

    Furthermore, wind energy:
    • is almost always a net economic liability to host communities,
    • has many proven problematic environmental consequences,
    • can cause well-documented adverse human health impacts, and

    2 Nuclear power is safest and cheapest

    Nuclear power is the safest and can become the cheapest way to supply power as:

    • The enormous regulatory impediments that are making them so costly to build are removed;

    • Small modular reactors (SMR) are built in factories, shipped to site and installed rapidly;

    • Their costs come down as more and more are built on production lines in factories, and they are improved and their production and construction costs come down;

    • They can operate for up to 60 to 80 years, thus greatly reducing the cost of replacements;

    • Transmission costs can be greatly reduced over time as smaller reactors replace large ones and they are installed close to demand centres; and, eventually, as micro reactors replace SMRs. Micro reactors can be sized for industrial estates, commercial properties, shopping centres, apartment complexes, and eventually for individual residential properties, thus greatly reducing the size of and, eventually, the need for an electricity grid.

    190

    • #
      Neville

      Peter I agree with most of your comment,but how long would it take to build, install and start up our first Nuclear power station?
      The first obstacle would be the drawn out legal fight in the courts and that would probably drag on for years. I’m not a defeatist, but I am a realist and I definitely want to see the end of TOXIC, clueless S & W.

      141

      • #
        David Maddison

        By the time of decision until first power would be 40-50 years, I’m guessing.

        41

        • #
          Dennis

          Rolls Royce UK (research) are ready to supply modular nuclear generators and the design is not at all like a factory, it is aesthetically pleasing and would fit into just about any suburban area if necessary.

          The UK Government has commissioned Rolls Royce to provide several of these generators as soon as possible and the Morrison Government here was in discussion with the UK Government and Rolls Royce UK.

          40

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Agree, and also believe the lead times will significantly reduce. RR won’t be the only organisation producing SMRs.

            10

      • #
        Ross

        Exactly, think fiasco with our submarine replacement project and add another 10 years!

        61

      • #
        OldOzzie

        Runway cleared for Santos on Narrabri gas

        The contentious project, which could supply up to half of NSW’s gas needs, has been more than 10 years in the making and cost about $1.5 billion of investment while never getting beyond the planning stage.

        Opponents, including several local groups, have vowed to continue their campaign against it, while the escalation of climate concerns and ESG issues have also heightened risks around financing for the project, which Santos has estimated will cost $US650 million in the first phase.

        Decisions are also needed for the route of a gas pipeline to transport the gas, a venture that is also fiercely opposed by several landowners and communities in the region.

        60

        • #
          Dennis

          Like the Adani Coal Mine NTH QLD, that took over a decade to get through the red, green and black tape bureaucrats’ including politicians.

          40

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

    Abstract
    This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.

    Lang, P.A. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. Energies 2017, 10, 2169. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
    Full text: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

    70

    • #
      Kevin T Kilty

      Darned interesting paper. Thanks for pointing it out. The turning point for nuclear had occurred by the end of the 1970s. I was in graduate school when the Three Mile Island accident occurred. Graduate students in geology, many of whom sought jobs in the Uranium exploration businesses which were already in decline, were ecstatic that the expensive accident would mean the end of nuclear power. I never could understand the disconnect. Yet, at a talk on campus here in 2008 or so by Scott Tinker (Texas Bureau of Economic Geology) a huge lecture hall of earth science majors appeared dead opposed to oil exploration. Cognitive blindness I guess. In the 1970s a survey in Canada showed that 45% of its citizens didn’t know that uranium could be used to generate electricity. My guess is that were someone to commission a survey today, you would find that 90% or more of our citizens do not know that TMI and Fukushima employed first generation reactor designs; and 99% wouldn’t know that Chernobyl used a reactor design utterly different from anything in the West. It’s like not knowing of automobile safety advances since the Model-T.

      70

  • #
    Wirebird

    Is it true that the history of small modular generators is that they were developed by the US Navy which needed to have nuclear generators on board nuclear-powered submarines?

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Yes and No.
      The ones in use are those developed for military use. High concentration of U235 hence highly radioactive residues when shut down. Not a problem with highly motivated supervisors and vessels also carrying nuclear bombs/missiles. The waste problem of decommissioned units is ‘solved’ by encasing them in concrete and burying them in a guarded underground facility. e.g. the Massif Central in the middle of France.
      These, I presume, are the types that Rolls Royce want to build, and Russia has deployed in remote areas. They don’t have to be giant plants, that is a matter of economics with the astronomical costs up-front for regulatory purposes.

      The newer types go back to the 1960’s (molten salt) or even earlier (homogeneous) types. The molten salt type uses thorium as the main fuel although ‘spiked’ with highly active starter. Once operating they can actually “burn up” highly radioactive “nuclear waste”. The original unit (about 5MW) ran for years (being shut down for Weekends by merely draining the fuel into a tank (and pumping it back into the reactor on Monday, but was cancelled because that type could NOT make plutonium for nuclear bombs.
      Homogeneous reactors use a liquid ‘carrier’ (heavy water) and have been used worldwide for 60+ years without problems, although mostly for making nuclear medicines. I think that about 100 have been in use in that time without problems. The Canadian CANDU reactors use that method but are more expensive to build because of the cost of heavy water.
      The USA military tried to turn one of the earliest homogeneous units into a nuclear bomb by dynamiting all the safety controls simultaneously. No explosion.
      I believe Russia was planning to build a ‘big’ one (170MW) in a remote town where supervision would be difficult to guarantee, but haven’t heard anymore.

      110

      • #
        Wirebird

        Thank you Graeme No.3 for your fast and comprehensive answer. You have pointed to three different strands of nuclear generation: military, homogenous (heavy water), and molten salt/thorium – and, I think, suggested that the inability of the latter to make plutonium led to lack of military interest in it. But re the Yes and No: did the development of the small modular form of molten salt/thorium owe anything at all to the need for small size generators within submarines?

        50

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          No. Independent line of thought. The military wanted “the biggest bang for the buck” and went for known technology rather than what was still a research project.

          20

      • #
        Graeme#4

        I’ve seen two different figures for the RR proposed SMRs, 440 and 470 MW. Believe these are much larger than the reactors used in subs or aircraft carriers. China is building a 125 MW test SMR. The Russian floating nuclear power plants consist of two 40 MW reactors.

        20

  • #
    Zane

    I had a suspicion our Chicoms friends would use Australia’s self-induced energy stupidity to quietly hoover up Australia’s coal reserves on the cheap, and so it has proved. The largest ASX listed coal producer Yancoal was already majority-owned by Chinese interests, and now they are mulling a move to squeeze out the remaining 20% or so Australian shareholders with a low-ball offer around $5, or 20% LESS than the shares were trading at before the rumour. The CCP obviously doesn’t understand capitalism very well, because takeover offers are supposed to be made at a premium. The Chinese do, however, understand CHEAP. They are bargain hunters on the prowl for access to valuable future resources. Australian super funds in thrall to the green fantasy of renewables want nothing to do with the energy-rich black mineral called coal. They prefer to invest in nonsense like Afterpay and A2 Milk.

    So be it. Yancoal mines 38 million tonnes per year. Almost twice as much as listed Australian independent Whitehaven Coal. Meanwhile Stanmore Coal plans to buy up BHP’s coal assets in Australia. Stanmore is now controlled by a Singaporean holding company which I believe represents wealthy Indonesian coal interests.

    150

    • #
      Ross

      Yes, and the financial institutions or brokers that control that remaining 20 % Australian ownership will now have ESG guidelines to adhere to. So, they will recommend selling to that lower offer for sure. The stupidity will then continue.

      120

  • #
    TOM BIEGLER

    Australia’s peculiar aversion to nuclear energy is almost unique. A serious combined endeavour by Australia’s four Learned Academies in 2010 failed to identify in any helpful way how this had come about. Anyone who has ventured in public into supporting the idea of a nuclear energy future here will be aware of the vicious chorus of opposition that follows. The professional anti-nuclear lobby is powerful and experienced (they’re all old campaigners). Embedded fears of radiation, explosions, waste disposal and the like remain. New memes like “too slow, too expensive” spread rapidly and issue from the mouths of high profile environmentalists and scientists. All the while the national faith in solar and wind energy as solutions for the CO2 emissions problem gives comfort to those who might not actually hate the idea of nuclear energy. So, the simple conclusion is that 53% of the population thinking nuclear might be a good idea is way too small. It has to reach 80 or 90% and that will rely on some combination of loss of faith in the solar/wind solution and clear messages from opinion leaders that eventually nuclear energy will be necessary for reaching anything like “Net Zero”. Till then nothing will happen. Fortunately there’s time to turn that around.

    110

  • #
    Neville

    BTW here’s another link to Ken Stewart’s article about the recent disaster for our electricity grids across eastern Australia.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2022/06/07/energy-crisis-or-ideology-crisis-the-rubber-hits-the-road/

    40

  • #
    Lee

    If we had nuclear power, all the windmills and solar panels are redundant. Not just the greens that would have a problem with that, but all the big investors and money makers riding the RE money wave.

    290

    • #
      el+gordo

      It would take a decade to get it running, by that time the wind farms and solar farms should be on their last legs.

      41

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Good point; and that’s probably a big consideration for any politicians who don’t want to anger the mums and dads who have their superannuation saving “invested” in renewables.

      70

      • #
        DLK

        superannuation saving “invested” in renewables

        so you pay for the investment, the government subsidy and the end cost as well.

        60

    • #
      Dennis

      In the news recently local government council forcing a home owner to remove solar panels because the house is heritage listed and, council points out, solar panels were not part of housing when the home was built.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Left don’t care about human suffering, as is obvious.

    This article asks the question, is it ethical to purchase a lithium battery EV, or presumably any lithium battery powered devices or Big Batteries.

    https://www.cfact.org/2022/06/07/is-it-ethical-to-purchase-a-lithium-battery-powered-ev/

    There is virtually non-existing transparency of the environmental degradation and the human rights abuses occurring in developing countries with yellow, brown, and black skinned people. Both human rights abuses and environmental degradation are directly connected to the mining for the exotic minerals and metals that are required to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries.

    SEE LINK FOR REST

    90

    • #
      Neville

      Spot on DM and as well as their new dangerous SLAVERY working conditions to mine for these TOXIC disasters the ongoing problems for the environment both below and above the ground every 20 years is a nightmare.
      And just proves AGAIN that the clueless Greens, Teals and Labor couldn’t care less about the environment today or FOREVER.

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Nuclear power is like the safe and inexpensive antivirals for covid.

    If it wasn’t banned, there would be no need for the ineffective and toxic alternatives: windmills, solar panels and Big Batteries in the present case.

    150

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Nuclear generated power is, evidently, the new ivermectin. In its case it would address the problem of cheap, abundant electricity for Australians but like ivermectin were not allowed to have it.

    120

    • #
      b.nice

      I would liken COAL (rather than nuclear) to Ivermectin,

      Coal is more analogous to Ivermectin, in that it has been used in huge quantities, successfully for many many years.

      And now they want to get rid of it because they need, financially and politically, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, to install more wind and solar.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    There must be consequences for Government depriving the people of inexpensive, reliable power.

    The Australian Government is arguably at war against the people and “energy starvation” might be considered a War Crime under the Geneva Conventions.

    In any case, if not a War Crime, the government starving the people of energy is grossly immoral, even if no UN court would regard it as a crime.

    PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS (PROTOCOL I), OF 8 JUNE 1977

    Article 54 — Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

    1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

    2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

    70

    • #
      Tel

      1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

      Starvation was used in the Boer War (burning crops and concentration camps), then in WWI (blockade of Germany), and again in WWII (both sides), and in the Vietnam War (purpose of Agent Orange was to destroy food crops) and again in the Biafran War (approx 1970 blockade by Muslim Nigerians) and more recently in the Yemen War (Saudi bombing food depots, water treatment plants, etc) and the Tigray conflict. It was used by the Soviets to subjugate their own people (Soviet Famine 1930-1933), and used by Chairman Mao for a similar purpose.

      Arguably we are facing this right now with the Ukraine being unable to deliver grain and Biden shutting down gas supplies, and fertilizer in short supply.

      It’s about as prohibited as guns in Chicago are prohibited.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    This morning I visited another family in Melbournistan who are cold and miserable because they can’t afford electricity or gas to keep warm under the cruel energy starvation policies of the socialist government.

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      And spare a thought for age pensioners who are genuinely afraid of using electricity much at all, let alone for winter heating purposes.

      I have heard of many who prepare for bed as the sun goes down to keep themselves as warm as they can.

      Australia, the wealthy nation with an abundance or coal, gas, uranium, thorium and salts, etc.

      The Lucky Country.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Note to Leftists:

    I propose that the more unreliables there are installed, the more expensive is the price of electricity to the consumer.

    This observation is beyond a hypothesis, I think it justifies being called a law.

    I have not found any evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

    120

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘Note to Leftists:’

      It would be more correct to say: Note to the Greens and their running dogs. Forget the diatribe, the left is a broad church composed of different tribes.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Many Australians would be surprised to know that back in the day, a nuclear power reactor was planned and construction actually started. I have visited the site. You can still see the leveled and cleared site and a concrete pad at Jervis Bay, NSW.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant?wprov=sfla1

    Naturally, the government chickened out of the project.

    The other proposal was French Island in Vicdanistan which was then a prison island (at the time of the original proposal), much as the Australian continent started and is still today.

    https://stopthesethings.com/2020/06/22/oh-so-close-how-australias-nuclear-powered-future-almost-began-in-1980/

    You may also be surprised to Learn that Australia also had some rational-thinking forward-minded people, back in the day.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Another accurate article from Francis Menton about their struggle to reduce co2 emissions and all the loony ifs and buts.
    In fact it seems that J P Morgan bank has a bi-polar approach to co2 reduction or how they’ll commit (?) trillions $ and YET also provide other reasons why it can’t work.
    I think this fra-dulent nonsense should also include words like corr-ption as well. The term Energy fantasy is right on the money.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/07/more-on-energy-fantasy-versus-reality-in-woke-land/

    50

  • #
    RK

    Jo,
    Nuclear power will be a must when oil starts to be come too expensive and in short supply. Synthetic fuels can be made from the high heat from nuclear power stations – this is outlined in the book by Prof.George Olah – ” Beyond Oil and Gas – The Methanol Economy ” As the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1994 he can speak with some authority on how di-methyl ether and methanol can be made which forms the base for diesel and kerosene.

    Dick

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      RK:
      predicated on CO2 causing Global Warming by recycling CO2 into dimethyl ether and methanol, burning them and recycling the CO2 etc.
      It seems an expensive (and unnecessary solution to a non-problem.
      At least it has a few rude words to say about “the hydrogen economy”.
      I doubt that DME or methanol would make good diesel fuels.

      And as a reminder NZ actually had a plant in the 1980’s to turn natural gas into methanol. The followup zeolite process to turn that into petrol didn’t procede when the price of oil slumped.
      Also brown coal can be turned into methanol as a base for lots of other chemicals very suited for diesel fuel (and lots of others).
      And oil must have run out in 1925 as was predicted by Arrhenius (and some guy called Rockefeller in the 1860’s) and lots of people since.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      The Australian nuclear energy group that operates the Sydney Lucas Heights reactor, ANSTO, expect that depleted uranium will be recycled in the nor distant future.

      30

  • #

    Geothermal is the future. Just do a search Geothermal China.
    May be we can import the technology?

    00

  • #
    David Maddison

    For anyone interested, I wrote an article “Small Nuclear Reactors: Reliable Power At Low Risk” in Silicon Chip, June 2016.

    https://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2016/June/Small+Nuclear+Reactors%3A+Reliable+Power+At+Low+Risk

    80

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    At 6:35 this morning, NEM electricity generation in MegaWatts was:

    Solar 5.21
    Wind 3,599
    Battery 2.14
    Distillate 78.95
    Hydro 3,629
    Gas 3,041.5
    Coal 15,563

    And coal was increasing to 16,551 at 7:40.

    70

    • #
      b.nice

      LOL, SA at 70% GAS again.

      And importing more than solar and wind combined are producing.

      They haven’t turned on the diesel generators … yet !

      50

      • #
        Ross

        You mentioned SA and just recently I did a quick google on Leigh Creek/ Port August/ Northern power station etc. All gone now because that nice man Weatherill blew up the power station. So, SA had a big open cut coal mine , which transported lower grade black (hard brown) coal to Port Augusta by railway line to be consumed by the power plants. Last one, Northern, built in 1985. Fantastic industry- employed miners, railway staff, power station workers. Sustained the little town of Leigh Creek as a decentralisation hub in the northern Flinders Ranges. So, I understood that green ideology shut down those coal plants but I though maybe it was due to poor coal supplies. Nope! Apparently, SA has an estimated 23 billion tonnes of that black coal in reserves. The annual output of that Leigh Creek mine was about 2.5 million tonnes. So, even using conservative estimates of easily accessible coal (say 10%) there was around 1000 years of supply. All gone now, even the town was demolished, probably never to be returned.

        90

        • #
          Stanley

          I would check whether the town was demolished. The old site was indeed demolished to allow for expansion of the open pit, and a new town developed which I think is still there. Interestingly Leigh Creek coal was opened up by Cherry Orchardist Premier Tom Playford so that SA could be self-sufficient in energy. What an old-fashioned idea!

          50

          • #
            Ross

            I did see a reference to the town being demolished in 2018, but maybe it was the remnants of the old town?

            30

          • #
            Kevin Kilty

            Google earth shows there to be a thriving town still. ?

            00

            • #
              Ross

              Yep, did the same. Still there, but I did notice towards the south of the “new” town. a lot of vacant streets.

              00

  • #
    Kim

    Over the next few decades at least survival will be the preeminent necessity. I largely don’t care whether we base that on coal, gas or nuclear. Latest nuclear reactors – backyard reactors – would be a good way to go. Power suburbs and towns individually.

    81

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    And then there is the NIMBY problem.

    50

  • #
    Hugh

    There are good reasons to go nuclear (private, not state) in tandem with whatever else the free market allows (bye bye wind and solar, except for bespoke situations.)

    1. Small nuclear reactors can be distributed across cities, powering, last time I checked, about 100,000 homes each from a unit about the size of a few fridges. Pretty safe from terrorists attacks taking out a city at one blow.

    2. Bigger reactors can do things like desalination if we need the fresh water. Remember, the brilliant paleomammologist and therefore climate expert Tim Flannery said “Even the rain that falls won’t fill the dams …” etc. So thanks, Tim – time for nuclear reactors on our beaches!

    3. As a fan of CO2, I reckon they could be used to manufacture CO2 and pump it straight into the atmosphere if ever we go down close to that 180ppm level whereat all plant life and therefore the rest of life ceases. A few more hundred ppm would do just fine now, BTW: people living on the edges of deserts would really appreciate it.

    Stupid effing Liberals. Never again.

    90

    • #
      David Maddison

      , I reckon they could be used to manufacture CO2 

      Most people, including so-called climate “scientists” don’t realise how dangerously low atmospheric CO2 became. We were facing a mass extinction event far worse than any previous mass extinction. Fortunately, it started to naturally rebound. Around 2 million years ago it got as low as 180ppm which seems to be lowest for the last 600 million years.

      The CO2 level is still too low. I think it would be better at around 800-1200ppm to optimise plant growth.

      100

      • #
        Hugh

        Agreed, David. I love telling kids how nurserymen spray CO2 on their plants to make them grow better. Hmmm, now why would that be, kids?

        I had a very brief conversation with the Greens how to vote lady a couple of weeks back. “No! I’m pro CO2! It’s the staff of life!”

        “But what about your grandchildren?”

        “Even better!”

        I maliciously enjoyed watching the blood drain from her face, poor thing.

        Seriously, though, ignorance kills no matter how fervently it is fostered.

        100

  • #
    the sting

    I support the lifting of the ban on nuclear and the removal of all subsidies etc. on renewables , what is the real cost per Kilowatt hour of electricity generated by wind ? It is certainly not ”free ” as the Labor/Greens tell us.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    At what point must the deliberate energy starvation policies of government, with the support of the vast majority of the Left, now infiltrated into leadership positions in all government and private organisations, be considered a crime?

    How is starving people of energy any different to starving people of water, food and other necessities of life?

    70

  • #
    Bruce MacKinnon

    Nuclear power plants take a long while to build and they are very capital intensive. The uranium they use is a microscopic proportion of the cost of production. So while Australia is uranium rich it does not give us any particular cost advantage.

    Nor are they necessarily reliable. France has nearly half its nuclear power stations off line now, about 40, with major construction defects mainly involving poor built in cooling pipe design. It is in a dire situation now with its energy. it is not the older plants that are failing, but the newer ones.

    Out special advantage is coal, and lignite is a good proportion of that. This is the cheapest source of electricity there is for power generation. Another advantage we have is our location in the middle of the vast Southern Ocean. What little nasty acid rain we would produce will just be whisped away by the prevailing winds never to be seen again. The seaweed and the seagrass and plankton will happily absorb CO2, and convert it to oxygen we breathe by photosynthesis. We are a coal treasure house. We are stupid not to exploit it at home. After all China has over 1,000 coal fired power stations, the whole of Asia are building them, and taking over the world economy with our energy we sell cheaply to them.

    If there was a prize for dunces of the world, Australians might win the prize.

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      I don’t think “acid rain” has been a problem since before 1990 and was never a problem in Australia.

      60

    • #
      Graeme#4

      SMRs don’t take that long. The SMR plants plants by RR can be moved in using semi-trailers. And Barakah, a very big nuclear plant, built the first two units in eight years each.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    We need to be careful with the nuclear “debate”.

    Naturally, nuclear power should be allowed.

    But it should only be in the context of it being an economical power generation method for a given set of circumstances.

    It SHOULD NOT be in the context that it does not create CO2 because then that still supports the economy-destroying insanity we are now in and no progress will be made.

    Nuclear power should be supported irrespective of its zero CO2 status and we still have to wake up the ignorant people of the world to the anthropogenic global warming fraud.

    90

  • #
    Hugh

    David, Bruce, I entirely agree. I’m extremely pro-coal, and natural gas, and I’m pro-nuclear (privately funded) NOT because it lowers CO2.

    I’m for what the market decides, take away all subsidies, taxes and regulations. It would be a mix, I surmise, but nothing some pencil-wielding pensioned Canberra bureaucrat who can’t be sacked would ever come up with.

    110

    • #

      they use computers not pencils, don’t get paid a pension while employed and they can be sacked.

      111

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        So, they can’t actually write!

        80

      • #
        Hugh

        G.A.
        1. Figure of speech
        2. Of course not! So what? Wealth creators pay for them.
        3. You have to do a lot of damage to be sacked from the P.S., unlike the private sector.

        80

        • #

          You have to do a lot of damage to be sacked from the P.S.

          this is simply not true.

          17

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Depends on the definition of damage.

            In 2022 one man’s damage is another’s normal.

            10

          • #
            Hugh

            I was in the P.S. for a couple of years. I know what I’m talking about. One guy used to load up a pallet of office materials every year to give away to his rellies and friends as Christmas presents. No-one batted an eyelid. But that’s just the beginning. I also knew people who were on the phone almost all the working day to friends and did bugger all. With no come back. Don’t get me started. (True confession … I wasn’t a very competent worker myself, I’m ashamed to admit. The guys around me were thoroughly decent and hardworking. Like hamsters at a wheel, though.)

            20

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Most people are well intentioned, but lack of leadership is the main problem.

              10

            • #

              your experience says nothing about whether you are correct or not.

              01

            • #
              Hugh

              Yeah … I guess I landed in the only inefficient branch in the whole of the P.S. What bad luck, eh?

              P.S. A lowly clerical assistant next to me came up, by himself, nothing to do with his duties, with an accounting procedure that saved the Dept of Defence about $2 million a year in 1970s money.

              What did he get for that? A plaque saying ‘Thank you, Mr B.’!!! Any private businessman would have made him head of finance.

              He wasn’t bitter about it … just philosophical. RIP Denis, I’m praying for you, mate.

              00

  • #
    Michael Spencer

    In an attempt to communicate the nuclear message, I’ve assembled this ‘introduction to an introduction’ in order to let the uninitiated discover it gently, and without frightening them off with even a hint of a technicality!

    http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/SaveThePlanet.pdf (Oh look! That’s a famous name. Wasn’t he some nut-case that the ‘scientific experts’ of his day said was ‘off with fairies’? Hmmm…. I wonder how that panned out?)

    There are optional side-bits which I hope are not too confronting, such as: Do you want to check out some REAL scientific FACTS that seem not to be known by many people? What about some REAL weather-event records backed up by old newspaper reports going back more than two centuries? And, oh dear! What’s this? Political manipulations behind the ‘climate change’ narrative? Surely not! (And this side option certainly provides some easily-understandable information about political manipulation!)

    The ‘introduction’ leads to the technology gently, so that viewers are alerted to how much technical development has been – and is taking place right now (about which most people know nothing!); be introduced to a few surprising side-benefits that will astound people – like using cheap power to desalinate sea water, and then to see that some of this water could be used to create fully-recyclable clean petrol/jet fuel where the ‘carbon emissions’ are just part of a natural recycling system.

    There’s an overall governing formula: FEAR + IGNORANCE = STUPIDITY! (And this is the principle that governs so much of the non-thinking of so many, and why – in ignorance – so many oppose nuclear power!)

    And I would appreciate any feed-back/criticisms/suggestions ….

    10

  • #
    Philip

    I dont. Until the coal runs out, then its a good idea.

    60

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    From on high,

    “You can’t blame Labor or the Greens for not implementing ”

    https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/half-of-australians-already-think-nuclear-power-is-a-good-idea/#comment-2555672

    But more importantly, what does the pieman say?

    31

  • #
    Dennis

    I am an advocate for nuclear energy to fuel power stations and for modular generators however the fact remains that the latest technology HELE coal fired power station technology would be far more cost effective for Australia and with due consideration for our vast black and brown coal reserves.

    Nuclear of course offers zero emissions and therefore deals with the climate hoax political agendas that has increasingly become the basis for global madness and irrational behaviour, but coal makes good sense.

    The Japanese HELE technology incudes re-burning of emissions, the nearest example would be Diesel engine exhaust reticulation valve technology. The Japanese technology lowers emissions compared to the earlier HELE technology. I understand that Australia only has one or two power stations using HELE?

    It is somewhat amusing and annoying to watch our politicians panic as electricity and gas prices rise significantly and supplies run low, they in the majority are obviously stupid people or cunningly following climate agenda instructions and crony capitalist benefactors.

    But the politicians seem to forget that they are elected by we the people to govern in our best interests including adding value to our nation and citizens through increasing economic prosperity, not much different to adding value to shareholder’s investments (Return On Investment) in public companies by directors and senior executives.

    We are being let down by too many who ignore us and the elected representatives who do the best they can for their constituents.

    70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Good summary and mission statement.

      50

    • #
      David Maddison

      Of what relevance is “low emissions”?

      70

    • #
      Ross

      Dennis, we always get into this politics blame game. You know Libs vs Labs. But I am really wondering if in fact the blame is with the Ministry of Energy at federal level. That there is a core group of public servants who are anti-coalers, but probably anti-nuclear as well. That they have been enforcing that policy for decades now. It sort of explains why when the LNP are elected, their actions are frustrated. Then when Labor gets in, or you have a teal Malcolm Turnbull type, everything gets accelerated for green energy. The politicians will never admit it, because they like to give the impression they are in charge. Someone in that Ministry has a real gripe about coal – maybe a family member was the victim of a coal mine accident? The ministers aren’t the problem, they just do what their department tell them or present policy that they know will get the public servants approval.

      50

  • #
    RK

    Graeme,
    George Olah makes the point that methanol and di-methyl ether can power diesel engines however he does state that the energy density is a half that of gasoline or diesel so whilst it could still be used it would not provide the same power and he says you could not mix them. I would say the last part of my sentence is not correct in that methanol could not make diesel but may be a replacement for it. He says that diesel has cetane ratings in the range of 40 to 55 whilst methanol’s is only about 3 so that is why the power would not be there

    30

    • #
      Dennis

      I had a neighbour who has since moved elsewhere who produced bio-diesel in his shed using vegetable oil that he and a buying group of friends purchased in bulk to share.

      He said that unused vegetable oil was superior and did not need filtering as used oil does obtained from shops that cook in oil, fish and chips for example.

      The processing equipment was sourced second-hand mostly from the local waste facility with a retired oil refinery engineer as adviser.

      40

      • #
        David Maddison

        Some years ago, a company, I think in Queensland, tried to start a commercial bio-diesel operation, recycling collected vegetable oil from restaurants, but they were taxed out of existence.

        60

        • #
          Dennis

          There were also two private companies trialling production of fuel from coal here, no doubt they had similar problems.

          40

      • #
        Zane

        The thing is, there is no way that every motor vehicle in Australia can be powered by used cooking oils. Ain’t happening. Thus, the concept is moot.

        This is what makes sense: crude from the Persian Gulf is shipped to Singapore by tanker. There it is refined into diesel and gasoline at one of two huge and hyper efficient refineries. The largest is run by ExxonMobil – 600,000 bbl/day. The next biggest is run by Shell – 500,000 bbl/day. There’s yet another, smaller, refinery which is owned by the Singapore government.

        The finished product is shipped to Australia – and elsewhere.

        Yes, Australia still has two ageing oil refineries. They are being subsidized to the tune of $1.8 billion by Australian taxpayers to stay open. Combined their total output is less than just one of Singapore’s big two refineries.

        Southeast Asia has 700 million people. Australia has 25 million. No one is building a new mega refinery in Oz.

        It’s jest the way it is…

        50

        • #
          Ross

          Yep, and don’t expect agriculture to grow the extra canola to produce that oil either. When you do the sums on yields/ha vs the billions of litres of diesel equivalent required you would need an extra continent to grow enough crop.

          60

        • #
          Honk R Smith

          The real goal is the end of personal transport for the little people.
          By little people, I mean those unable to afford private aircraft.
          You can’t re-establish pre-colonial migratory patterns if there are highways.
          Food distribution can be worked out after the culling.
          They may allow subsistence hunting with stone weapons once the NWO is complete.
          Only hunting style stone weapons will be permitted.
          And one arrow capacity quivers.

          20

          • #
            Honk R Smith

            Oh, and I forgot, the little people will be littler due to Anthropogenic Climate Change.

            10

      • #
        JoKaH

        When following a vehicle using bio=diesel it smells like you are following a fish and chip shop!

        50

      • #
        John+PAK

        Sadly, the Govt wants us to pay tax on bio-diesel. I’ve made about 3000 litres in the past when I could find enough old oil. 44 gall drums of methanol are not cheap and you end up with many drums of vegetable glycerine after the trans-esterification process. It would be difficult to do on a commercial scale as new oil is very expensive tho’ it does make good predictable batches of fuel.
        My chip-oil fuel ran well in a ’92 Isuzu diesel and my straight 6 Landcruiser but I’d not put it in a new high pressure injection pump car like a V8 Landcruiser. My fuel also waxed up the first fuel filter in snowy weather but was helped by the addition of a napthalene,ethanol additive.
        If I owned a farm I might grow canola (rape seed oil) for my own equipment but for the average user it would be a very expensive alternative to mineral diesel. Probably the best alternative is to extend diesel with LPG augmented intake air. Au LPG is cheap and plentiful and causes a more efficient diesel burn.

        50

    • #
      JoKaH

      Glow plug engines used in radio control models run on methanol. The glow plug is initially connected to a battery until the engine fires and then the heat of combustion keeps the plug hot enough to keep the engine running. However this is not a true Diesel as the compression ratio is similar to that of a spark engine and do not rely on the heat of compression to fire. Nitro-methane is also mixed with the methanol to increase the power output.
      I don’t know if they are still available but in my long ago youth small Diesel engines which ran on kerosene and castor oil were also used in models. These were true high compression engines relying on the heat of compression to keep firing and were responsible for much colourful language trying to get them started.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Reminds me of the reminiscence by an ex Coast Watcher in the islands up North. For various reasons they crept into a Japanese controlled bay one night and opened fire. The result was tumult esp. when their diesel engine woudn’t fire up. The engine was of the glow plug type (and being run mostly on readily available coconut oil). He obviously survived but was grateful for “the appalling aim of the Japs” while they took the glow plug out, heated it up to red hot then reassembled the engine and made their escape, keeping firing as the did all the while.

        10

  • #
    Peter

    Also keep an eye out for South Korea. Their previous President was slowly closing down nuclear power plants. The newly elected President (in office for about a month now) is clearly in favor of increasing the number of nuclear power plants. To him, they are the only viable option to replace the coal power plants. It is not the CO2 which of the biggest concern here, but it is the fine dust associated with coal power plants and its supply chain.

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    China is developing a transition to renewables problem, joining the wake up call other renewables experiment participants are now receiving;

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/07/bloomberg-china-suffering-a-renewable-energy-curtailment-curse/

    40

  • #
    Zane

    Aside from the overall debate, there is so little certainty as to future energy policy that no operator wants to commit the billions of dollars in capital required to build an entire new power station of a sizeable scale. Instead they faff around with little ” peaker ” gas plants and a diesel gennie here and there. Soon Tesla owners and grey nomads with a tiny caravan generator will be asked to chip in and buttress the power supply. Ownership of legacy assets is fragmented; both public and private. Private operators can only finance a $3 billion power station in one of three ways: raise equity capital, raise debt via bank borrowings or issuing bonds, or realistically a combo of both.

    But they need a market for their new electricity to be viable. The politicians have chimped out to appease the climate nutters. The future will probably be like the present, a hodgepodge workaround of patches and ” demand management “.

    Once a government starts living by lies, it can’t wind back.

    20

  • #
    Daffy

    The nuclear scare started in Oz, I understand, with Helen Caldicott’s scare campaign. We didn’t have nuclear arms, so there had to be a target that would keep supporting the Soviet propaganda to demonise nuclear energy. Power production was it. The campaign pretended safety based on the waste storage needs, easily solved for us. The useful idiots were in the ‘tradition’ of upper middle class rich kids who fantasized over the ‘kindness’ of nature (yep, the same nature that is ‘red in tooth and claw’). It was a continuation of the late 19th century Romantic naturist movement, which also influenced NAZI ideology mid 20th century. The target for this crowd was the advanced technological industries of which nuclear power was the prime example. It was entirely a put-up job, and very easy to deal with politically.

    60

  • #
    Dennis

    Another point regarding Diesel engine fuel is “Diesel-Gas” technology, the latest an injected mixture typically in the ratio 20 per cent Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) or more depending on the cubic capacity of the engine. The system can also used Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and has beeb installed on ship engines.

    The emissions are greatly reduced because the diesel combustion is in the area of 95 per cent as compared to 80 per cent typically without gas added. So exhaust particulates are much lower, power and torque is increased by around 20 per cent on average resulting in lower fuel consumption driven normally. Obviously the more power and torque used the more fuel is used.

    70

    • #
      John+PAK

      Another way to enhance diesel is to fracture steam into a plasma of neutrons, protons and electrons inside the diesel vapours in the cylinder. You need a tungsten spark plug and a hefty ignition system with ultra-capacitors to set up the high temp spark. The ensuing lightning bolt of “burning” plasma totally incinerates the diesel vapours rather abruptly. Bit tricky to set up. Tungsten melts at ~3500ºC so you need a clever welding device to even make a tungsten spark-plug. I’m using a Russian welder which boils a mixture of water and methanol and squirts it through an orifice across-which runs a continuous electric arc. You end up with a little pencil-lead of 7000ºC light which cuts through steel, tungsten and house bricks. Once up and running, the pencil of plasma can be shorted to the work-piece through the plasma. It is similar to the way that the Earth shorts up to the clouds during a thunder-storm except the power supply exhausts in a millisecond, – thankfully !
      One would do well to run this in a ceramic engine block for obvious reasons and if we were to augment a coal furnace with fractured steam we’d need to line the furnace with porcelain tiles like the Space Shuttle.

      00

  • #
    Ken

    “Economics don’t stack up” on nuclear energy”: Jim Chalmers, Treasurer.

    Well I’m sorry Jim, but the economics don’t stack up on either solar or wind (intermittent and unreliable) without huge taxpayer subsidies.

    I know which I would rather have to keep the lights on 24/7.

    50

  • #

    Morrison was a people-pleaser. That’s your problem right there.

    41

    • #
      b.nice

      Yet he pleased no-one. !

      Not the greens, not anyone from Labor.

      And certainly not a lot of people who used to vote Liberal.

      60

  • #
    crakar24

    I am sure Simon is here just to take the Mickey out of people they/them/he/him/she should be ignored the same as we ignore GA

    20

  • #
    b.nice

    EnvironMENTALists trying to block new gas pipelines in the EU. (not linked to Russia)

    https://climatechangedispatch.com/putins-useful-idiots-try-to-block-new-eu-gas-projects/

    How much more rancid stupidity can these fools manage !!

    50

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    In THE AUSTRALIAN today an article from The TIMES which reported on the BBC report from some Environmental group called Ember.
    The claim is new modelling says that methane leaks from coal mining in Australia might be 10 times previously estimated. As Australia is the biggest exporter of coal BY VALUE this could derail the new Labor government’s push to better the environment.

    Splendid news. Capture the natural gas from our coal and solve our gas shortage.
    Even better if we note that methane at 1.9 p.p.m. and 84 times worse than CO2 (estimate from NOAA) it means that this level is equivalent to 160 p.p.m. of CO2.
    CO2 has increased by 135 p.p.m. since 1895 (Arrhenius) so the combined effect is 295. And the world temperature has increased by 1.0℃ in that time, so the IPCC estimate for climate sensitivity should only be 1.0℃ not 3.5℃ for any doubling of CO2. Readers here have commented on the lack of even simple arithmetic shown by the gullibles but this surely deserves a price. The EMBER Award?

    Comments about natural releases from termites, wet lands, arctic tundra warmed by Global Warming, or that short lived bit about deep sea clathrates suddenly releasing methane should be ignored.
    The SCARE is the STORY and the BBC (and The TIMES sink slowly into the mud).

    30

  • #
    Hivemind

    Imagine my surprise if the green powerbrokers allow Labor to build a nuclear power plant.

    10