Hasbeen, you're the one on the raw prawn. There's lots of storage available. We have pumped storage, and battery storage already, with scope for plenty more of each. Pretty soon we'll have thermal storage (as part of the solar thermal power plant) and in the long term we'll undoubtedly have chemical storage as well.

Aidan did you do any math at school?

You obviously can't do any math if actually believe the garbage you just posted, so please contact me, I have a big bridge to sell you.

While we are at it those damn submarines should be nuclear.

Solar, what else are you going to suggest for a joke, firstly remember a few weeks ago that woman who protected her baby during the hail storm replace her with thousands of solar panels nearly all would have been BROKEN, SMASHED, OBLITERATED.

Good luck at night time when most cars in the future will be electric, and in a city a few 100 thousand people want to recharge there car batteries.

Small correction: "Australia remains an active miner and exporter of uranium to countries such as India. These countries use this uranium to produce terawatts of clean electricity to millions every year." Not right. I haven't done the precise tally but with some 450 nuclear power plants running at an average output of say 1 gigawatt, global nuclear fleet runs at something less than 1 terawatt (TW). And that's not 'per year'. TW is a unit of power, that is, the rate of electrical energy production. The energy produced over time is cumulative, the rate at which it's produced is not. Perhaps pedantic but there's so much confusion about electrical units that getting it right (occasionally) is worthwhile in my view.

It's a shame that so many people feel they are qualified to comment on fairy tales, known as 'renewables'.
Like all good fairy tales, 'one day my prince will come'.
And so it is with renewables.
It reminds of that film, 'build it and they will come'.
That was a fictional film, and so are renewables.
It's been a comedy of forced errors.
Forced because there is a dangerous and stubborn movement out there led by arrogance and ideology.
Renewables are NOT up to the task yet, maybe one day.
Right now they are a 'pipe dream' at best.
Their duty cycle is arguably the most inefficient and deficient of all the power generating offerings available today.
One thing is for certain, and that is, if we push for this electric car future, we will not have the capacity to service this future demand without compromise.
The current power suppliers will resist any attempts at creating new cheaper power supplies, because they will have to drop their prices, or if they back it, it will be because they will profit even more and will not drop the price.
The people have been conned by these bastards, because, I don't think anyone has given any thought to the fact that, once the subsidies run out, anyone with solar panels on their roofs will be supplying free power to these scumbags, while you carry the burden and cost of maintenance and repair, or replacement of the solar panels eventually.
Sure you might be getting a cheaper power bill, but your provider is making money out of you, you are facilitating him so he profits even more with no outlay or cost to him, cut him off as soon as you can.
What I believe should happen is everyone pull the fuses, get their own batteries, (car ones will do, approx 20)thereby getting off the 'grid' and essentially telling the scumbags to go and get stuffed.
If enough people did this, (I'd like to see everyone do it) these pigs would go broke over night.
I would really like to see that.

Another advertisement for the nuclear industry. Sadly lacking in effective arguments.

- The author calls nuclear power -"clean electricity generation", though the world is struggling with how to deal with nuclear's toxic wastes.

- Lucas Heights is not "a key supplier" of medical isotopes France, Netherlands are far more important. And anyway, cyclotrons are now becoming recognised as far more suitable and safe ways of producing these isotopes

-The author talks of high costs of "conventional" nuclear power plants - but completely avoids discussion of the costs of the much touted, but as yet non existent Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. (SMRs). They're supposed to be cheaper - yet there is no market for them. One reason for that is that the only way that SMRs could be marketed commercially, is in mass orders, not just one by one. Who's going to take the risk of ordering them en masse - with the possibility of something going wrong?

- The author quotes the latest 60 minutes episode run by Ben Heard. As many critics have noted - this was more like a laughable straight ad for the nuclear industry. Quite a disgraceful poor performance by Channel 9, especially in view of their previous fine programme on 60 Minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n05BeqPp1w

-The whole argument about carbon emissions relies on simply focussing on the nuclear reactor, which indeed releases but a tiny amount of carbon. Problem is the entire nuclear fuel chain - from uranium mining through to waste burial - and all the steps in between - releases heaps of carbon.

- The author wisely ignores renewable energy - which is becoming ever more effectively and cheaply developed