Some ideologues have managed to let truth in e.g. Zion Lights (ex- Extinction Rebellion) http://youtu.be/0LC_LQbOjE8

The Finnish Green also understand http://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/finlands-greens-soften-stance-on-nuclear-energy/

So, coal is nearly dead. Oh well, long live the King! Gas producers stand to gain massively as coal gives way to gas backup of intermittents and transport is electrified (largely with that gas!). This is why BP, Shell et al. are so fond of renewables, knowing there isn't, and won't be, a storage solution to ever make 100% renewables economically viable. And where did I read gas is touted be quarantined from any future carbon tax in Europe because it's a 'transition' fuel! I'll find it eventually
http://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/european-super-majors-shell-bp-leading-the-charge-to-electrification-52447328

Bazz, please give me your understanding of the full life cycle cost of EVs, & the full life cycle emissions of the same.

You could also suggest just how, without coal, nuclear or gas power generation, we are going to supply the amps to charge the things

I thought our smart government was going to solve all our energy problems with gas to make up for the shortfall from renewables and storage. They had better extractus digitus and start building before Yallourn and Liddell close down.

David

Noel.

Nuclear power is statistically the safest form of power in the world. That it is a low carbon source makes it the logical choice.

NUCLEAR REACTOR MEASURES LACK SAFETY AGAINST LARGE AIRCRAFT TERRORISM

Hi Noel/Christina

You would already know that I'm a "swinging voter" on nuclear issues. I now vote AGAINST NUCLEAR. After some research:

Reason One - LACK OF SAFETY AGAINST LARGE AIRCRAFT TERRORISM:

Noting photo, courtesy ABC News http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-27/lucas-heights-nuclear-reactor-breakdown-medical-supply-shortage/9915242

AT:

http://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/7aef675f5eab8ccecae03aa7738c4506?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=266&cropW=400&xPos=0&yPos=17&width=862&height=575

Following "9/11" there was/is international concern that large suicide one-way-terrorist-piloted aircraft could be used against nuclear reactors.

Such is official Australian concern that a huge crash barrier - but useful against light planes only - has been placed around-over Australia's suburban Lucas Heights reactor. Unfortunately it is well recognised that its inadequate against the large jets (eg. 757s used in 9/11) let alone 747s or A380s. See Sydney Morning Herald July 3, 2004 at http://www.smh.com.au/national/safety-net-to-shield-reactor-from-plane-20040703-gdj9c3.html

The crash barrier is useful against a Light Aircraft attempting to rupture Lucas Reactor.

But useless against a "Jumbo Jet" eg. a 550,000kg A380 merely travelling at its cruising speed of 900 km/h let alone a terminal dive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#Specifications_(A380-800,_Trent_engines .

The "Jumbo Jet" would in less than 1/20th second penetrate into the still hot fissioning reactor core meanwhile destroying the coolant pool and perhaps the reactor floor.

Less than 1/20th second is too short a time BEFORE any emergency measures, like control rod drop, can arrest the fission. Exposed reactor core, steam (perhaps radio-active) explosion, possible meltdown if reactor floor ruptured.

Lucas Heights reactor's cage and concrete shell need major and expensive reinforcement before the reactor is restarted.

P.S. No new-fangled new-reactor type safety measure can be declared safe against a very large jet impact - unless the reactors are built
deep underground - and even then leak into water table concerns...

Hasbeen,
The experience with EVs so far is that an owner who drives
some 20,000Km a year is better off due to the savings in fuel and
service chargers. Quite true if like me I do a very much smaller a
distance because of the higher cost of the ev it is more expensive.
That is why I do not have an EV. (Yet)
As I said my friend has had one for 8 years and will soon be up for
a set of tires soon. His first maintenance cost. Charging $2-50 weekly.
I agree that the mad greenies think you can close power stations and
run the economy on sun & wind. When the public buys EVs and plugs
them in at home after arriving home from work then it will be obvious
that nuclear will be demanded by the next morning.
However I doubt there will be no choice but to buy EVs as the oil
companies slowly reduce their presence in our economy.
Shell & BP have decided to install chargers in every service station
in the world. Shell has already started installing them in Europe and UK.
I just cannot see millions of evs being charged on a cold still night
no matter how many BIG batteries are hung onto the grid.
Hydrogen does not look promising because of the energy inefficiency
of the full cycle from sun to electricity to hydrogen to compression
to transport to car to fuel cell to electricity to motor to wheels.
I think it is a no goer.