//So, on balance, with current technology, what is the best deal for consumers in the long run ? Just asking.//

Depends how worried about CO2 you are:

If you think it's harmless plant food and that the greenhouse effect is a myth, then keep burning coal.

If you are bothered about climate change, then nuclear is the way to go.

If you're bothered by nuclear as well, you're probably a hippy and nobody cares what you think.

Thanks, Toni. I suppose nuclear, either way ?

One problem with going totally nuclear would be that there may not be enough CO2 being produced to assist plant growth - we may have to deliberately burn coal and oil and gas to keep enough CO2 in the atmosphere to enable plant growth, including in the vegetables that we will come to depend on, in a future vegetarian world.

Whaddo Us Vegetarians Want ?! More CO2 ! When Do We Want ?! Now !

Cheers,

Joe

Its not a case of thinking CO2 is unimportant or thinking the "greenhouse effect is a myth" (no one thinks that anyway). Its about recognising the massive uncertainties about the likely extent and timing of the warming and, more importantly, recognising that Australia's efforts are effectively useless as regards any future warming.

I find it touching that all these people are anxious to protect those nasty capitalists from wasting their money on inefficient and costly nuclear.

The solution to the issue as to which system is the most cost effective is at hand. Its called the market. Get rid of all subsidies, get rid of all mandated targets, open the field to all comers and then let's see which system provides the cheapest most reliable power. We, of course, won't do that because we all know the answer and that answer is unpalatable to those of a certain leaning.

There's great cost to integrating renewables, which become cheaper and cheaper, into the grid. Some on this forum believe that where there's will there's a way towards 100% renewables, regardless of technical and cost issues. They ignore inconvenient truths with dreams of scalable, viable storage and argue that the cost of renewable hardware is falling, these making "The Transition" inevitable.

I provide the same link to an article I did earlier containing the service industry analogy, as well as a follow-up article by the same author who is a pro-nuclear environmentalist standing for election as Governor of California (now there is a dreamer):

https://tinyurl.com/y7ohlts5

https://tinyurl.com/yad42bk7

Alan B suggested;
As one step steel smelting giant arc furnaces.

Not practical, the radio interference produced at those power levels
would be enormous.
You could key it to communicate with Alpha Centauri.

Some on here seem to be trying to avoid nuclear power.
I suggest for the world there is nothing else on the horizon.
Even hot rocks is a gamble, but well worth putting money into trying.

Not much point the holier than thou proponents of wind & solar pushing
their barrow. The 100% argument has finished and its over.

The only argument about wind & solar is it worthwhile as a auxiliary
source of energy.
The real argument now is which is the best way to make the transition
to another source of 24/7/365 electricity ?

Something to think about at the moment Sth Aus's wind is 56 Mwatt !
And that is on a work day !
Over Anzac day it was never above 150 Mwatt each time I looked.
The graph should be interesting for the last week.

Update; Sth Aus wind now 25 Mwatt.
Their diesel generators are doing a good job, so much for renewables.

Qld coal holding up NSW & Vic.