Perhaps the Morrison government could also have a good look a new CIS report that says half of Australian households are receiving more in welfare than they are paying in tax. They call it 'voting for living rather than working for living’.

Gas, via OCGT's is a load-following enabler of renewables in a transition towards extremely expensive 100% renewables generation. Baseload CCGT's don't change the emissions scenario a great deal. Both do a bit better than HELE. None of these will impact significantly on AGW mitigation, even if the whole planet adopted them.

Graham, I don't see nuclear legalization mentioned in your points. Why not, whether you believe in AGW or not? Mitigating consequences of GW will be inescapable anyway, but why not also advocate the precautionary principle regarding a root cause by lowering emissions through the only tried, true and tested generation solution there is?

Nuclear via SMR's can load follow any existing renewables, when they soon hit the shelves, and we need to be able to hit the ground running by having the nuclear debate settled in their favour.

Foxy, Mr Duton could be prevented from standing, by having his eligibility challenged in the High Court and the election called while it was being heard?

Steele. Yes, a mystery indeed that has seen record exports in the last four months?

Lucifer. No mention of nuclear indeed, given that would see coal-fired support funding dry up on both sides of the house.

And so it shall remain regardless of the business/economic case anyone can make for nuclear. And Just about the only way either Labor or the coalition could wedge the other by simply proposing to lift the ban imposed by GOVERNMENT CREATED regulations.

Governments created those regulations and cite proliferation any time they're seriously challenged on the subject? Even though every boy and his dog know that the horse has bolted.

Finally, a new government should advocate just dumping previous arrangements and negotiating new ones which should see us buy twelve new nuclear powered nuclear capable subs off of the shelf for the cost analysis cost-benefit case.

With suitably trained technicians etc trained and stationed here to repair, service and upgrade them or even convert them to far safer MSR thorium ASAP Or at the first ideal opportunity.

Albeit, show pony Tony could advocate they be coal powered, given that's almost the outer limits on his thinking, when it comes to modernity.

As long as our alleged representatives continue to resist essential basic and irrefutable common sense solutions, they will continue to suffer in the polls and may have resisted to the last man, change imposed on them?
Alan B.

Hi Steele and Lucifer, I didn't put all my thoughts into the piece, just 20.

The gas issue is to do with supply and demand. We wouldn't have much of the gas we currently have if it wasn't for the export market - that was what provided the financial incentive to actually create a lot of the supply that people now complain is going overseas. But we would have a lot more gas, and no problems for domestic supply, if NSW and Vic allowed more gas exploration as well as fracking. Should be noted that the US didn't export gas, but now is into it in a big way. It is not exportation that is the problem.

I'm also a qualified fan of nuclear. It's the least worst option if we are determined to limit emissions. I'm watching the SMR revolution carefully. It seems to have more promise than most, but I've seen new technologies fail to deliver on their promise before, so will need to see some of these units in operation before I get too excited.

Graham,
A significant effort, too much for me to digest at once.
Regarding energy, as I see it we have a choice to make.
At some point we can stop export of coal and keep it for our own coal
fired power stations. This will give us a breathing space of as much as
100 years while fusion stations are hopefully perfected.
When they are perfected we could start switching over to them.
If it becomes obvious that fusion will never work or will always be 60
years away then the rest of the world will have changed to nuclear
uranium or thorium. This would mean that we we could take our time to changeover.
Being able to take our time means we would be unlikely to make major errors.

Dear Graham,

Come on mate, with respect our gas reserves particularly out of the North West Shelf have been mismanaged right from the start.

When John Howard crowed about signing a deal with China back in 2002 for $25 billion he didn't let on that the Chinese had managed to fix the price through to 2031. Yup, right now China is getting gas from that deal at a third what Australians are paying for domestic supplies. It will only get worse.

“The Chinese had got the deal of a lifetime because the consortium of Australia's North West Shelf operators hadn't thought to insert a clause into the contract that would raise the price of gas from what was, in 2002, a historically low level.”
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html

Most of the consortium were overseas concerns who don't give a toss about this country's future but it certainly is a job of government to do so.

If the North West Shelf had a decent quota set aside for Australian industry and power generation like it should have been there would not be any pressure for the fracking cowboys to come anywhere close to our food production areas. We should have a pipeline shunting gas from the shelf right to our manufacturing powerhouses across the nation. All that has been pissed up against the wall and we are now paying the price.

John Winston Howard and the robber barons in the West have a hell of a lot to answer for.