mhaze,
When I say they're low cost, I mean they're low cost. I have NEVER EVER pretended that something that's high cost but subsidized is low cost.

However there does have to be an economic incentive for adding generating capacity, because as things stand it's more lucrative for electricity companies not to provide more capacity; failure to provide more capacity leads to higher electricity prices and therefore higher profits.

So although a few years ago I thought that falling costs would soon make initiatives like the MRET unnecessary, I concede I was wrong on that.

I have long thought England could do with more nuclear power stations, so I consider this announcement to be quite a good one. But there have been announcements before that ended up not actually resulting in anything. I reckon this one has a higher chance of coming to fruition than our nuclear submarines, but it's still far from certain.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
I live in the real world. But unlike you, I don't live in the past!

It's truly amazing how the pro-green energy outfits never touch on the subject of the manufacturing of 'Green Energy" !
It is up there with the cosmetics industry's & other frivolous industries' insane pollution !
The worst part is that the most polluting industries are also the most unnecessary !

Quote "I'm not aware of any good reason why anyone working in the fossil fuel industry can't work elsewhere."

There are 39,000 of them in coal alone.

Unemployment... 2.54 million Sept 2021. or 2.58 m inc those in fossil fuel who would become unemployed. I know one thing for certain, you would scream like a banshee if you were turfed out your industry and told,"- bloody well get on with it."

Whats a few more unemployed eh?

Fossil fuel plant operators need re-skilling, plus being paid during the re-skilling, and which industries have the capacity to absorb them..coffee shops?

How about 3% taxing the 13 million employed with average of $1,150 per week and give to the 39,000. After all, it is only taking 3% of the average to give an equivalent average salary..forgetting of course the miners might have bigger house mortgages because of higher pay -so in your view what is a bit of financial pain for some riff-raff rough necks. Right?.

Your wave of the hand "I am not aware" says most of it and "Can't get work anywhere" clearly has you seated comfortably safe, secure and insulated.

Wild Man,
Cheers for that. I've stated here many times that those in secure employment (Public Service) should contribute for their privilege to support the victims of quite a number of bureaucrats !

Wild Man, you have COMPLETELY misunderstood my post.
I'm not saying unemployment is acceptable, I'm saying it's AVOIDABLE.

The current unemployment rate is high because of Covid, but it's a short term problem. Once the economy opens up, the government can create conditions resulting in full employment if it wants to. Indeed I have always advocated it doing so, unlike many people on this board who prefer contractionary fiscal policy (aka trying to run a surplus).

And yes of course people need reskilling. Why do you consider that to be a problem?

The fossil fuels industry isn't going to be shut down overnight. It will be a gradual phaseout taking at least fifteen years, so there's plenty of time for people to reskill. And of course there should be government help for people affected. As for where people will work instead, I expect the metals industry will absorb of them than any other due to similarities in the required skills. But there will be plenty absorbed by other industries right across the economy, and yes that will include coffee shops.

My phrasing "I am not aware" was not a wave of the hand, but an acknowledgement that I don't know everything and that a counterexample might exist (and also an implicit challenge to find one). Your speculation about me is entirely wrong, though of course that's just a result of your missing my main point.

Just to be crystal clear: unemployment is unacceptable, but government policy can make it completely avoidable in normal times.

Well this article will put the cat amoung the pigeons.
That article has said in figures what I had sensed all along that 100%
by 100% is unafordable.
Np need to worry about pollies going for Net Zero by 2050 as it is
impossible, we just cannot do it.
They will just send us broke trying.