The only 'old days' we need to get back to are they days of coal, gas and oil and cheap electricity.

There is no 'climate emergency', and there is no proof that carbon dioxide, which makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, has any effect on the climate.

With all this BS going on in Western countries, China and India are laughing themselves silly at our stupidity.

The knuckle draggers in Canberra are the worst of the lot, completely ignoring what is happening Europe, as the authorities there (belatedly) find out what a horse's arse the entire climate con has been.

This article highlights many of the difficulties associated with the energy debate. Typically we only consider the costs associated with commisioning and running the plant. The so-called externalities are largely ignored - yet the community as a whole picks up the tab for includes a condition that the company is responsible for some of these costs it is rarely enforces.)
This article is no different - there is no comparison between the costs of the externalities of various forms of energy. One reason for that is the literature dealing with this aspect of energy is complex and opaque - different standards and different assumptions are applied so that makes the exercise of making claims about what source of energy is cheaper an exercise in futility.
What is reasonably well documented is that if we want to make the transition to a zero-carbon future there is no technology that can achieve this unless we are prepared to change our lifestyles.
There is some interesting work being done in transition engineering this you tube video is worth looking at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSPVBbIztWk
It will be cold comfort to most and of course our politicians are a long way from achieving this.

Hi Baygon,

There is no difficulty, just ideologically driven stupidity and a bunch of con-artist renewable energy companies replete with highly optimistic claims about costs making a fortune from taxpayer subsidies.

What seems to be causing problems are the rising electricity costs and spiraling cost estimates for powering Australia with renewable energy (wind/solar with hydro/battery storage). The irony is that nuclear energy has been repeatedly dismissed as being too expensive, then Chris Bowen releases a cost estimate to prove the point but instead his cost estimate suggests that nuclear power would cost a fraction of a renewable Nirvana.

Now we are in a bind with aborigines objecting to a far off shore
gas well being planned. The objection is that the Rainbow Serpent
might be inconvenienced.
Well, as it appears that it can go a long way away, perhaps anywhere
in the world why doesn't China's work on the reefs in the Sth China
sea bother it ?
Frankly, I will say it out loud !
The Rainbow Serpent does not exist !
It is old mythology and perhaps should die because of man's discovery
of other idols.
Captain Cook jerked the aborigines 60.000 years ahead, so it is about
time that they brought their beliefs up to date.
The world has moved on.

On another matter, there is a lot of objections to the chains of
transmission towers being built.
Why can't the power be sent on underground cables ?
Oh too expensive the cry out !
Well it is not too expensive to run then under Bass Strait.
I will bet that is more expensive than underground.
Don't even need a cable layer ship for starters.
Then there is that proposed cable from Darwin to Singapore.
Someone is being taken for a ride !
Perhaps they just like the look of the towers.

One more thing;
They say the coal stations are clapped out etc etc.
It can only be the boilers and coal handling equipment that would need
the most upkeep.
Some might remember the 600 volt DC power station in Clarence St Sydney.
It had an AC motor driving a DC generator for all the DC lifts etc
in the Sydney CBD.
Well when it was finally shut down, not because it was clapped out,
it was about 100 years old !
We are being lied to by both government and generators.