How the 43% will be achieved is as clear as how the Voice would operate. It is a good example of 'fools rushing in'. And the Leftist media just announces one hare-brained scheme after the other, as though everything is done and dusted - with never a word about other countries failing to reach any of their ridiculous targets.

And, people like Helen Thompson and Vaclav Smil are suppressed here in the People's Republic of Australia, just like anyone else who goes against the climate orthodoxy.

"Like in other parts of the world, much of this resistance ….". What resistance? Expecting resistance from Australians these days is super dooper optimistic. As is anything "obvious" by or from the " …. Coalition, especially the Nationals…" who are cactus, merely faint copies of the Socialists.

There has never been a "climate war". There has never been any real resistance to the Marxist assault on our economy and our way of life.

Climate wars over!? Not by a long shot, but particularly when morons/simpletons decide we achieve same with cuts in living standards!

Only true if the nuclear option (MSR thorium) is not on the table! But with it on the table, a vastly improved, unlimited energy, rich standard of (net zero) carbon free living! See LFTR in five minutes.
Alan B.

We need one of our governments, preferably NSW to rush around and get
quotes and declarations of interest from Rolls Royce on the modular
nuclear power units they are building for the UK Govt.
If they do not move soon, the queue will be beyond this century.

Everything I have not heard about this Net Zero projects indicates
that the people driving this are simply STUPID !
Even though they demonstrate, not even simple engineering knowledge,
they do not even have the nouse to take advise.
These are the people who cheered and laughed when those power stations
were blown up.
Not for a minute did they think, err perhaps we should mothball them.
Just in case we end up needing hem.

THEY REALLY ARE THAT STUPID !

From what I gather renewable energy proponents have little understanding of using intermittent, erratic, low capacity factor power generation to power the grid, and were nuclear power discussed I think there would be massive opposition.

As Germany and South Australia demonstrate, an anti-nuclear, pro-erratic energy ideology are far less effective reducers of CO2 emissions than nuclear power.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-molten-salt-reactor-cleared-for-start-up

Just because we have rare earths needed in cell phones, wind towers and electric vehicles, doesn't not mean we can manufacture or process any of the above here.

Elbow got elected on a promise to manufacture more stuff here. Lithium batteries in particular! So we can use the same to back up solar and intermittent wind? And with that backup which includes pumped hydro, produce the world's most expensive energy. And a manufacturing sector forced by energy costs, offshore!

All because labor doesn't have the wit or the will to accept the only way we can save our manufacturing sector is with nuclear energy we develop, own and control ourselves! Instead we get a say on an indigenous voice to government as if that was the top priority

Stuff foreign investors and their tax avoiding, price gouging, profit repatriating model.

We should preference local co-ops we facilitate and fund to keep costs to the minimum and local competition for your energy dollar, to the maximum!

And that starts with the rollout of our own new Ozzie bank that can then fund, massive drought proofing water projects, rapid rail and MSR nuclear power projects to mention the most obvious and urgent! We should make life saving medication here, an also urgent reality. And also not possible with current (world's costliest) energy paradigm going forward!
Alan B.

Alan,

Labor has pulled up the drawbridge on the nuclear power dialogue. Too expensive, too polluting, too dangerous, and too slow to build apparently. Never mind the reality that 100% renewables will cost many times the price (if it is possible to do at all) and have less than a third the service life of nuclear power. The idiocy of the erratic energy zealots leaves me with little confidence in our economic future.

Hopefully the experimental Thorium msr built by the Chinese in under three years will be a success. Testing will take about eight years.

Fester. The quickest build of a conventional solid fuel reactor took just six months with the reactor commissioned and operational in twelve. Your nuclear knowledge is at least a century behind the curve.

We could if we wished, have (off the shelf) MSR thorium here inside twelve months in barges that are towed where we want.

8 years? Garbage. the Chinese have already installed bug free operational thorium reactors in a number of their warships and subs.

MSR thorium is clean, safe and cheaper than coal power. Yes, I'll concede conventional nuclear energy is dirty and unsafe.

That's not true for MSR thorium. Where conventional nuclear power creates as much as 95% as nuclear waste, MSR thorium burns 95% of its fuel creating just 5% as waste. Waste that is far less toxic and eminently suitable as long life space batteries that burn up with reentry.

Interestingly, buried nuclear waste decays (in around thirty years) to mostly plutonium. Which then can be burnt in MSR technology, as can conventional nuclear waste reducing the waste product to as little as 5%. Which has a half life of just 300 years.

Forget the fact free fearmongering, Fester and take a butchers at LFTR in five minutes. Then listen to prize winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin and his tech talk on U tube, on thorium. After that, try talking from a little higher up!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

Alan,

If Thorium is so simple and cheap then why have the Chinese only built a 30 megawatt experimental gen 4 reactor that the IAEA knows about? In fact, why isn't Thorium powering the world as there is no cheaper energy source? Yes, plenty on the internet, where you can also learn how to make free energy and cold fusion machines. Hell, I just learned that it's the natural order of things for sh$t to flow uphill. I must get my toilets replumbed immediately!

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

Why must have we have renewals only, why not combine the coal, with renewables? Australia produces so little of the world's carbon there is no need for this drastic billion dollar costs and causing food and petrol shortages to have only renewables.

China is not going to ever swap all their coal power for renewables.
No matter what they say at world conferences and a couple of photos they might show. They produce a third of the world's carbon.
Australia produces 1.3%. India produces 11%, I suspect they don't count the millions of poor people living in shacks and villages who light fires every day to cook,warm themselves and have light.
Burning wood puts lots of carbon into the air. Trees absorb carbon and
and give off oxygen. They are the lungs of the earth.

Also burning wood destroys big Forrests of trees.
Western countries have big re-afforestation industries.
When they estimate the carbon percentages do they factor in the well trees countries and how much carbon is recycled by the trees..

Then there is the fact that the climate is cyclical not linear,
Physicists who not on the political power or money gravy train created by Climate change, will tell you that the planet constantly goes through mini warming and cooling periods, some lasting a few decades,come a few centuries. They know this by carbon dating and finding Fossilised tree trunks under one of the present day world's biggest glaciers. The trees date back a few centuries.

Who wishes their cost of power and inflation to go skyhigh because of this manmade climate change delusion.

It's hysterical delusion. A waste of time and money.
There have always been, huge floods, huge fires,years without a lot of rain. It's a pity our countries and our children have to be put through this

Albo wants to radically slash our emissions while also running a Big Australia mass immigration program. Absolutely bonkers.

As economist Leith van Onselen rightly asks: "With the fierce debate around Australia meeting its “net zero” emissions obligations by 2050, it is worth asking how this target could realistically be achieved with the nation projected in the latest Intergenerational Report (IGR) to add 13.1 million people (a 50% increase) over the next 40 years on the back of extreme immigration levels of 235,000 people a year?"

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/10/how-will-australia-meet-net-zero-with-50-more-people/

Albozo promised to reduce electricity prices this clearly shows that he was lying through his teeth.

The Coalition's heavy electoral loss was in (large?) part because of Morrison's supporting Net Zero, which drove away many Coalition voters. If Albanese's plans come to grief, as they will, the Coalition can only benefit if it repudiate's Morrison and ongoing emissions' reduction policies and reverts to what was once one of Australia's few advantages in world competion, low cost reliable power supplies. I live in hope rather than expectation.

We're well past the end of the beginning. Though most people on this board cling on to the delusion that renewables are expensive and can't do the job, the public has started to see through the lie. Once electricity prices fall, the views of the previous government will generally be regarded as lunatic fringe.

Whether that will be regarded as the end is uncertain, as the 43% target is pathetic and even net zero isn't enough. But at least we won't be controlled by those who deem it impossible because they're too stupid to see how to do it without cutting living standards.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Fester and Alan B.,
Some people, most notably Bjørn Lomborg, noticed that renewable energy was expensive but the cost was dropping fast, and predicted that when it got to the point where it was cheaper than fossil fuels, there would be a rapid switchover. Now we have reached that point. We can rapidly decarbonise our electricity sector, but there are unforeseen problems - chief among them being that doing nothing (and driving up electricity prices) is the most lucrative option for electricity companies.

Australia has very abundant solar and wind resources. Not everywhere is so lucky, so in parts of the world it makes sense to supplement renewables with nuclear power. They're finding it's an expensive option. Britain, with its new Hinkley Point nuclear power station already running way over budget, recently decided to go with more nuclear power anyway for energy security reasons, but those modular reactors Rolls Royce intends to build don't exist yet and nobody knows when they will.

Thorium power and MSRs genuinely have a lot of potential, but commercialising them is not a trivial task. It makes sense to do the R&D where the product is needed, rather than in Australia where it isn't.

Alan B., are you aware that artificial nuclear reactions had not been achieved a century ago?

Aidan,

The erratic nature of renewable energy means that it cannot replace the baseload power supply without sufficient storage. Including this storage, requirement makes renewable energy far from the cheapest.

Nuclear is still the cheapest reliable non-GHG generating power supply.

"Though most people on this board cling on to the delusion that renewables are expensive and can't do the job, the public has started to see through the lie."

That's rich Aidan. The lie that people are starting to see is that of erratic energy being up to scratch. And if that isn't enough you bring poor old Bjorn in to support your opinion. So what does Bjorn think of erratic energy? Not much from what I can see.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/19/fossil-fuel-price-spikes-are-causing-pain-but-little-climate-payoff/?mc_cid=1e04bb28ce&mc_eid=ec8e12f466

Albozo has made a rod for the coalition to beat Labor with.

The chances that Labor can reach its wildly ambitious targets are slim,
The odds are that energy prices are going to rapidly increase,
There is a good chance that their policies will lead to blackouts.

the delusion that renewables are expensive and can't do the job
Aidan,
no delusion, just fact as things stand presently !

Ah well now some of the previously unknowns of the 43% legislation
are now coming to light.
It appears that heavy industry will be allowed to buy "high quality"
co2 offset certificates.
It was not defined what "High Quality" means.
It does imply that you and I will only be permitted to buy
"Low Quality" offset certificates.
Perhaps the big CO2 emitters will buy their certificates from the
Gnomes of Zurich but we will be forced to buy from The Elves of Berne.

You think I am joking don't you; so ask someone in finance who the
Gnomes of Zurich really are.