For electricity output I prefer watt-hours to joules as it's not clear if the latter includes the thermal value of the fuel. Australia produced about 270 TWh of electricity last year. After gas replacement, EVs, population growth etc that could be 500 TWh by mid century.

A more targeted consideration is the storage requirement for 100% RE. Recent dunkelflaute conditions suggests Australia needs a month's worth of energy storage. The cost is mind boggling; for say 20 TWh at say $400bn capex per unit (expanding $400/kWh) you do the maths.

SMR nuclear could get down to $100 per MWh which is probably too expensive for heavy electricity users like aluminium smelters. I suspect those big users who say they'll cope with nearly 100% RE are really saying burn more gas and keep subsidising the price. Trouble is Australia won't have any natgas left in 2050 and hydrogen will be several times the price. We're heading to a brick wall.

I can't see any problem here. We can mushroom the population to 40m, with corresponding hikes in energy demand, transition to the UN-approved fuels of wind and solar, and the gladsome rainbow of UN "net zero emissions" will fix thing. Even better, we'll be a "global energy superpower".

Everyone has been “arguing for years”, but our stupid politicians are still blundering along, determined to wreck Australia with the renewable fantasy.

There is no such thing as an “all-electric fossil-fuel-free modern industrialised economy”, no matter how much the arguments rage.

The reasons for such an impossible dream are based on the hoax that climate can be manipulated, and that carbon dioxide (constantly confused with carbon) has to be reduced, when it is already at dangerously low levels if we want to continue practising horticulture.

The ‘arguments’ are boring, pointless and dangerous.

Taswegian. If the technology being developed by Copenhagen Atomics is successful, and it looks likely that it will be, generation cost may well be no more than a half of your figure of $100 per MWhour once they get into full production. Distribution cost will also be lower because multiples of their 40 MW generators could easily be set up where the energy is needed without long high voltage transmission lines.
David

In the meantime, India is going “gangbusters” with coal, its PM demanding another 31 gws of coal power on top of whatever is already belching out emissions that are apparently more acceptable to the climate than the miserable few that Canberra boofheads want gone altogether from Australia.

Everything pathetic little Australia does, wrecking it's economy along the way, is undone by the likes of India and China. Good luck to them for ignoring the climate hoax,

How stupid Australia is!

VK3AUU normally Alan B praises molten salt reactors but he is worryingly absent. Some of the issues with them are described here
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019
People are freaking out about large lithium batteries so a mini nuke in the next suburb could be a hard sell.

I expect the SMRs on the market by 2030 will be the light water type modified from Western submarine designs. If their power costs $100 that's a bargain for weather independence, no CO2, no frequency correction and no new transmission. Yet CSIRO in their infinite wisdom reckons they could cost up to $641 a MWh not $100.