I have never heard of Leo Smith but, boy, did he write the truth back in 2012!

“Sanity and rationalism have been cast aside …”. You need only to think of Bedlam Bowen to know that is true.

Since 2012, things have got worse; the politicians have got madder and more controlling; electricity is getting dearer and dearer; nobody is listening; few people care.

Australia is rooted

Speaking as a former power authority science assistant. I mostly agree with the author.

Renewables/green anti-development ideology, may be carbon free, but certainly not the best, cleanest and safest carbon free option, nor is it dispatchable without massive investment in pumped hydro or humongous battery backup.

That said, the best, safest, cleanest and cheapest carbon free power that is also dispatchable is nuclear. Not the huge edifices that date back to the fifties, but as either SMRs or better yet, MSR thorium.

The Chinese invested millions or trillions ironing out the bugs in MSR thorium and cheaper for us than trying to refurbish old coal-fired power stations. And the smaller ones can fit inside a standard shipping container as ready to generate options.

They come with several upsides, one being power for less than 3 cents PKWH. And also, the production of a large range of medical isotopes, the most notable the miracle cancer cure, the alpha particle, bismuth 213!

MSR carbon free technology can also burn nuclear waste, where in CARBON FREE MSRs it is mostly unspent fuel that could power this nation for thousands of years with "unspent fuel" we are paid annual millions to take.

Nuclear waste is mostly low rad uranium! [Bananas, Brazil nuts and milk are also mildly radioactive.]

MSRs burn in a safer environment than any coal/gas-fired/renewable option. Because they don't need water as a coolant can be placed almost anywhere, negating the need for continent crossing, eyesore transmission lines.

But serve microgrids that can be placed underground also, where they would be far less vulnerable. And less costly to maintain long term.

Some of our services need to be placed underground, it therefore makes perfect sense that all should be delivered thus.
Alan B.

On top of UN open borders, UN "net zero" has stormed Australian "thinking", inside ten years. It aligns Green and Labor.

"Net zero" is an article of faith for state premiers, the public service, bishops and billionaires, industry, unions and universities, media and “think” tanks, myriad lobbyists. Dissent is rare, and potentially very costly.

After constant lecturing from the try-hard Matt Kean, not to mention the European Union, Morrison eventually caved, and "committed" to net zero. Sadly, today's Liberal Opposition wouldn't dare seriously oppose "net zero". The local and international pressure is just too much.

Such a clear, simple well written article Charles, but too much so to get through to the product of our dumbed down education system today.

It is just as well nature has given us so many natural advantages such as our coal, gas, uranium & iron ore as we throw away, or conned out of most of this gift.

I must take issue with Charles on a number of points: 1)CO2 is not a "pollutant", nor is it catalytic (i.e. runaway). 2)We need more CO2, not less. 3)I'm partial to the proposition that the "greenhouse effect" occurs only in an actual greenhouse, not in the Earth's turbulent atmosphere. 4)I don't have a problem with nuclear, but Australia's top priority should be the construction of new coal-fired base load capacity. 5)To ensure grid stability, the name-plate rating of connected intermittent sources should not exceed say 20% of the installed base load power.

Deleted for abuse.

Alan B.
Are Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, Gerlich & Tscheuschner high enough up for you?

RAS,
The biggest & worst pollutant is the stupidity of those who have no concept of daily life.

Indyvidual
What point are you trying to make? Please respond in Australian English and without flaming me.
Thanks

RAS,
Nothing aimed at you, only at those who have no concept of everyday working life.

The pro renewable crowd hasn’t as yet put up a list of any raw material that can be renewed without a carbon footprint. I for one am extremely interested as to what is a sustainable for perpetual reuse material.

Interesting opinions lacking any scientific support?

Suppose one cannot expect more from the Atlas or Koch Network linked US fossil fuel Heartland Institute (as is AIP, IPA, CIS etc.), sentimental agitprop versus reality?

FT 'Opinion Data Points: Economics may take us to net zero all on its own. The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions.

JOHN BURN-MURDOCH

In 2009, coal was still an attractive option for countries looking for affordable energy, its average costs coming in well below renewables. But by 2020, both wind and solar had become far cheaper per unit of energy. In some markets, capital-intensive new installations even worked out cheaper than existing coal plants.'

https://www.ft.com/content/967e1d77-8d3c-4256-9339-6ea7025cd5d3

Can anyone tell us which present “renewables” are actually being renewed ?

Average costs are misleading because what counts is the cost of incorporating a generator into an electricity utility which is quite different. Also note that Denmark and Germany have the highest electricity costs in the EU and they also have the highest % of renewables in their systems. Also renewables is a misleading term, energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can be changed from one form to another. Solar panel and windmills, the materials, are not renewable, or rather, reusable either. Intermittents would be a better term for solar and wind generators.

Steve S.:
Your comments are spot on. The distressing thing is that Federal and State Governments accept in an eye-blink, every new slogan coined by the UN; "net Zero", "1.5", "melting ice caps", "species extinction", and so on. And yes, nobody is game to stand up in Parliament and say that climate "change" is a figment of the imagination, and the greatest hoax in human history.

I think it has been now realised that renewables means that they have
to be renewed every 25 years.
I think we should use the name intermittents for wind and solar.
I have seen many discussions on just how many times peak demand over a
year has to be duplicated to get 100% supply 100% of the time.
It spends largely on the geographic size of the grid.
It depends on the latitude of the grid.
It depends on the wind pattens of the grid.
Forget the solar, it is only there for a short time each day.
Those that have been game to do the calculations say that the
duplication varies between 5 and 12 times the maximum demand.
Taking into account the 25 year lifetime the renewables are impossibly expensive.

Reading the European press etc it now seems that Net Zero is in the
process of being abandoned.
The Germans seem to be leading the charge with the British not far behind.

Well done Bezza. Great Ilustration why all-renewables grid is not fit for purpose and that the term renewables is not fit for purpose either. Net zero is very unlikely anywhere any time soon, while atmospheric CO2 still increasing, now 424 ppm.