VK3AUU,
At this stage I can't see it happen any other way happening in Europe. Australia is or rather will be a different scenario if Labor gets re-elected as their indoctrination tactics & record immigration create a demographic that'll be uncontrollable. If the Coalition gets in we have a slight chance of some positive things happening in regard to enlightening the masses & foster a more realistic/sane mentality.
The contamination of the gene pool by the Greens is probably the greatest threat this Nation has been afflicted with. Only conservative mentality can sort that mess. The use of nuclear energy can help restore the focus in this Nation !
Oh and, a Flat tax !

Let's take a deep breath here.

99.9% of us know only what we are by told by the media, the political class and ideologues - all liars to a man. What we say here means diddle-squat. Nobody in charge gives a damn about what we think. Why? Because we keep voting for the same people; most of us, tongues between teeth, faithfully copying out Liberal, Labor, Greens, and now those absurd Teals' how-to-vote-cards.

You want change? Get off your arses and get elected. Or at least vote intelligently.

John,

"Incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima highlight potential risks"
Are incidents like Chernobyl(46 deaths) or Fukushima(0 deaths, >20,000 deaths from the tsunami) commonplace? You haven't presented evidence of ecological harm from the nuclear industry, so I'm guessing there isn't any. The "Red Forest" was the most contaminated site following Chernobyl, yet according to Wikipedia:

"it has proved to be an astonishingly fertile habitat for many endangered species. The evacuation of the area surrounding the nuclear reactor has created a lush and unique wildlife refuge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

If you want to see landscape resembling a post-nuclear apocalypse in films and tv series, Mike Moore shows many examples from renewables:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

The destruction of trees thousands of years old along with the devastation of their habitats by the renewable energy industry is commonplace and ongoing. With nuclear power you get none of this damage.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-05-31/solar-project-to-destroy-thousands-of-joshua-trees

"The claim that solar and wind farms would require several times the size of Tasmania is a gross overestimation."

It isn't my claim. It comes from research by Net Zero Australia, a collaboration of the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, Princeton University and international management consultancy Nous Group. They obtain their raw data from the renewable energy industry.

"While some overcapacity is necessary, advancements in battery technology and pumped hydro storage help manage these fluctuations effectively, reducing the need for excessive capacity"

I linked the full paper, indicating a 25-43% renewable overbuild. For the Australian grid that amounts to 10 to 20 ap1000 nuclear reactors running 24/7/365 for no purpose. Is it any wonder that wind and solar are so bad economically?

You paint an optimistic picture of net zero with wind and solar, yet you provide no real world examples or cost estimates. Nor do you acknowledge the environmental impacts of wind and solar, such as the area of land affected, instead insisting that it is good for the environment. And your frequent suggestions of environmental harm from nuclear without providing evidence is dishonest.

All waffle and no substance John.

Keeping it simple: no one has successful implemented an all-renewable grid. Some dispatchable power is essential for reliability. Intemittency by nature, involves many extra costs to incorporate it into the grid. German and French experience would suggest nuclear is cheaper that renewables. Germany and Denmark have the highest electricity consumer costs in the EU and the highest % of renewables. France is 60% nuclear and does not have the highest costs in the EU and exports to Germany when the sunbeams and not there and there is no breeze. This full-scale experience has more validity than all the other arguments that can be presented.

Fester,

You write, "All waffle and no substance John."

You are so right. And like most waffle, it is second or third hand, copied from Google or some other Leftist, activist machine.

The idea is of for people to freely express their opinions, not someone else's or some organisation's.

You can tell when posts are not original opinions by the stilted way they are expressed.

Fester,

I provide real-world examples and/or cost estimates every time I clarify a real-world situation that has been misrepresented. A comparison between California and Ontario was my most recent. No waffle required.

You provided no link to the claim that an area several times the size of Tasmania, so I have a more general response based on the information that I linked to, which explained why the idea - regardless of who it is from - is incorrect. I would be happy to respond to any links you could provide.

Speaking of links, there were a number of misleading claims in the Michael Moore documentary you linked to.

1. Advancements in battery storage, grid management, and diversified energy sources have significantly mitigated issues with intermittency. Many regions now successfully integrate high levels of renewables, greatly reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

2. The lifecycle emissions of renewable energy technologies are substantially lower than those of fossil fuels. Additionally, recycling programs and advances in materials are further reducing their environmental footprint.

3. Regarding biomass and biofuels, sustainable biomass practices and the development of second-generation biofuels can significantly minimise their environmental impact. These energy sources are part of a broader mix of renewable solutions, not standalone answers.

4. The claim that overpopulation is the primary issue leading to excessive resource consumption is also addressed. Population control is a complex and often controversial topic. Rather than drastic population reduction, solutions focus on sustainable development, efficient resource use, and equitable distribution of resources.

5. The assertion that renewable technologies are deeply dependent on fossil fuel industries. While the transition away from fossil fuels is indeed gradual, it involves reducing dependency through technological and infrastructural advancements. The key to a sustainable future lies in balancing energy needs, technological progress, and environmental considerations, rather than dismissing the potential of renewable energy sources altogether.

As for Chernobyl, it must be noted that the wildlife sanctuary left behind by the disaster is the result of a lack of humans, not radioactivity. It's a testament to wildlife resilience despite the resulting health issues, not to the benefits of nuclear disasters.