What a stupid 'adage' to start a conversation with. But, of course, we expect stupidity from the loony-Left that cannot tell us how much difference in temperature "clean renwable energy" will make. The rest of us know the answer - no difference at all - and that the only way that society can survive is with reliable, cheap energy; and this means coal or nuclear. We already have the coal, which has made Australia competitive and a big exporter of the stuff to growing economies with the commonsense to use it.

As for nuclear, well it is expensive to set up, and its introduction here would be too late to solve the mess we are already in, thanks to mental defectives in the climate hysteria industry. So, it's coal, coal, coal. At least until we have established nuclear plants.

The federal regulator AEMO tells us that
1) gas is the answer to the reliability problem
2) gas will run out fast.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. Too bad if the Commonwealth spent nearly a billion on interstate connectors to get coal to do the heavy lifting for SA then put the kibosh on coal.

The Royal Commission did say nuclear electricity was uneconomic and that taking in foreign waste was the best idea. Now strangely that was also the view of a few waste enthusing consultants working for the RC and not that of dozens of independent submissions. That inner circle concluded that nuclear power would be far more expensive in Australia than other countries (eg France) where it is cheap. Maybe we are fast approaching a time when nuclear is competitive (say $100/Mwh) if the aim is serious emissions cuts. Remember wind power gets $90 subsidy on top of the wholesale trading price.

THe reports quoted, extremely dated and written by folks whose knowledge was hopelessly incomplete! Particularly given, it willfully and deliberately excluded thorium.

Thorium is at least three times more abundant than uranium and is less radioactive than a banana! Thorium is very easily recovered and ready to use without costly enrichment!

If I were to step outside my back door and dig up dirt, then fill a one cubic metre box, I'd be able to recover around 8 grams of thorium and at a cost of around $100.00!

And given that 8 grams of thorium could power my house, car and provide all my material wants for 100 years! My total energy bill would be just $1.00 a year!

And this is what frightens the bejesus out of the fossil fuel industry and big nuclear alike! And some simple minded governments, focused exclusively on the fuel excise they'd stand to lose! And, without considering any number of truly massive economic upsides that would more than make up for presumed lost revenue!

The central graphite core of such a reactor, needs on be around one cubic metre! and molten salt the cooling and heat transfer medium. Meaning they and Co2, helium or nitrogen gas powered turbines can be placed anywhere a standard sized shipping container can be trucked or ferried to!

And taken together, able to produce significant profits from walk away safe, mass produced, factory built technology, for up to 100 years, from the most energy dense material on the planet, which by the way is less radioactive than a banana!

Moreover, can be designed and tasked with burning and burning again and again most radioactive waste until the half life is reduced to 300 years.

And have other nations pay us billions for the service! Which can be achieved without shut downs? Similarly, miracle cure medical isotopes can be also extracted from any operational reactor, without needing costly time consuming shut downs or start ups, which can then be reserved exclusively for routine maintenance!

What do we have to lose? only our depressed economy and carbon pollution!
Alan B.

If you take the cleanest safest cheapest energy on the planet, for which we have a thousand year supply in our topsoil. And then use it to power the world's newest cheapest desalination, via the new deionization electronic shock wave dialysis method, which treats the uninterrupted water in situ as it transfers up or down the pipeline, producing 95% as potable water.

And for four times less cost than current reverse osmosis membrane filter technology! Then couple the world's safest, cleanest, cheapest energy to it, and you virtually drought proof Australia!

And in so doing, place Australia and Australians at the head of the queue in the new boom, the food boom!

And then replace our aid dollars with both technologies shipped as economic gifts that produce economic benefits and indeed, new trade partners, who grow economically with us!

As that happens, stabilize then reduce population numbers! And by the only means shown thus far, to actually work!

I kid you not, used together, these two are, end war and want; and save the planet technology!
Alan B.

Ah yes you say, all well and good, but pipelines to carry this new water can be costly and our current foreign aid budget is miniscule!

Yes sure, but even impoverished nations have some existing pipelines, which can be retasked, patched, and have a few lifter pumps installed to reduce pressure?

And given that water is then used to overfill disused or empty dams or water storages, with potable water! Changing some harsh landscapes is doable and not just for economically depressed people, but local flora and fauna as well!

Simply put, the time for talking is over and needs to be replaced with on the ground action now!

Or just don't bother? After all, you are warm and comfortable aren't you? And that's all that really matters after all, isn't it?
Alan B.

Why do leftards just assume that other people can't see through their double-talk, shallow-brained illogic, and hypocrisy?

If nuclear is not commercially viable, then there's no need for any governmental intervention to stop it from happening, is there?

And if renewables need government support, that means they are running at a loss, which means you have to use *more* resources to achieve a given outcome, which means they're *less* sustainable, not more, you moron.