Given our unrelenting dependence on fossil fuels what happens when they run out? Rex Connor's 1974 prediction that eastern Australia would need WA gas is coming true. Instead of long pipes the transfer will be via LNG ships. What goes into oil refineries these days is less crude and more condensate and tar sand extract. $4/L petrol will slow things down, possibly by the end of the decade.

Note to Albo, Australia is already nethers deep in the nuclear fuel cycle. Olympic Dam is the current world no. 2 uranium producer and has the biggest reserves. The ANSTO developed laser enrichment process is now at work in Kentucky. Defence pundits say the subs are most likely locked in. Australia should put its name down with several SMR manufacturers and have some sites ready to go. Find a disused deep mine to store waste.

The article exaggerates the challenges of renewable energy while downplaying and ignoring its successes and benefits.

Firstly, the citing of the increase in CO2 mistakes correlation for causation. Economic growth, deforestation, and fossil fuel consumption in developing countries are the cause of the rise.

Secondly, the claim that solar and wind are not the cheapest forms of energy because they are "part-time generators" and intermittent is narrow. Wind and solar actually work out cheaper over their full life cycle. Once you account for costs of fossil fuels in areas such as fuel, maintenance, pollution, land degradation, and the impacts on public health, it becomes abundantly apparent why this is.

Finally, the assertion that an all-renewable grid is "highly unlikely to succeed" and will lead to blackouts, etc. is premature and baseless. It ignores grid modernisation, the deployment of complementary technologies, and rapid improvements to storage technology.

Nuclear power may be necessary, but it is not the silver bullet that Hemmings portrays it to be; given the set of challenges that it, too, brings with it.

A disused mine to store waste: To bury a coke can. Then let it seep into ground water, good idea. There is an above ground receptacle here already in the desert with the qualifying base for light water and medical waste only. With a decay life of 12 years. Heavy water and uranium solids can not be stored anywhere at this time. With a decay life of several thousand years.
SMR reactors are made small for small jobs, You would need 3.250 reactors to equal 1 GwH reactor. SMR are sealed tank ‘light water’ reactor to create steam or hot water. No where as efficient as a 1 GwH reactor operating with solid uranium fuel. France repurposes uranium for reuse but more expensive as new uranium.

Gosh, I think that AI is becoming quite entrenched in this forum, be it artificial intelligence or Albo's indoctrinated.

While the same people are making the same arguments about electricity generation, they are ignorant of - or just don't want to know about - what is going on, or not going on because of power shortages, in Europe, where they are are actually experiencing the failure of renewables; where, in Germany, people are fined for using more that their quota of electricity.

Keep up the constant yack yack, and cop a nasty bite on the bum when reality hits Australia, if we don't continue to use fossil fuels into the foreseeable future.

As I said on olo previously;
A friend of mine, Keith Alder, the boss at Lucas Heights from its
inception till his retirement had a proposal for major part of the
waste problem.
You build two especially designed power stations.
Into the first one you load the waste from the conventional nuclear
power stations. It produces power until the radioactivity falls to a
point where is unsustainable.
You take the waste from that reactor and load it into the second one
designed for that fuel and get power until it also depletes to a very
much lower level.
Other countries will pay us big money to take their waste and put it
through our stations and we get "free" power.
You then take the very depleted waste and bury it deep.
It is a metal so it does not leak out.
He put a piece of depleted uranium in my hand and it was amazing how heavy it is.
I have never heard mention of this solution since then.
Keith was a metallurgist and worked in UK power stations and was
somehow involved with the UK weapons program.
He was engaged by the government to build the Jervas Bay nuclear
power station until Billy Hughes pulled th plug.

Fester,

I’ve checked the posts of Taswegian, doog, and myself, and they all come out as 0%. So, I don’t know what you could be talking about. Your assumption that AI necessarily gets it wrong all the time demonstrates an astonishing ignorance of the technology, too.

ttbn,

Europe’s energy issues are primarily due to geopolitical factors, not the "failure of renewables." Germany is not fining people for using electricity quotas, either. You made that up.

Continuing to push these false claims doesn't change the reality: renewables are increasingly reliable, and Australia has the potential to lead in this space. Clinging to fossil fuels out of fear will only leave us behind while the rest of the world moves forward.

Those Australians who love rolling in guilt will be pleased to know that that Australia is really, really bad when it comes to climate change and fossil fuel.

"Australian coal and gas exports cause more climate damage than those from any other country bar Russia", according to one Adam Morton of the 'Guardian'.

John,

You argue that wind and solar technology will undergo massive cost reductions over coming years, then you say that we need to jump in now. That sounds very wasteful and contrasts with your view that nuclear should be avoided because of its high cost, despite numerous world examples showing that the choice of nuclear over renewables leads to lower energy costs. Wind and solar are still only a few percent of world energy production, and given their intermittency and the vast areas of land they require I cannot see that figure increasing much.

I think it better for you to attribute the dishonesty in your posts to AI rather than yourself. Arguing with AI is like watching a cat chase its tail. Unlike human beings interested increasing their understanding and insight of a subject, AI, be it artificial intelligence or Albo's indoctrinated, seem only to repeat the same points, apparently unswayed by any information to the contrary. But at least some here are learning something.

Fester,

That’s a bit unfair given that you have not yet managed to catch me being dishonest. Keep trying, though. I’m sure it will keep me on my toes!

It’s also unfair - not to mention hypocritical and ironic - to cling to a dubious accusation and an old claim that I had addressed (while pretending that I hadn’t addressed it) to make it sound like I’m impervious to facts. (Psychologists refer to the latter there as “projection”.)

You are yet to successfully refute a single thing I've said.

Anyway, the cost reductions in wind and solar are not speculative; they’ve been happening rapidly over the past decade, making renewables the cheapest new energy sources in many parts of the world right now. Waiting for further reductions would only delay our transition and keep us locked into more expensive and polluting fossil fuels.

Wind and solar might be a small percentage of global energy today, but their share is growing fast. Advances in technology, energy storage, and grid management are already overcoming the challenges of intermittency and land use. To dismiss them based on their current status ignores the direction the entire energy sector is heading.

I guarantee I have been here longer than you have by far. Fester:

You then take the very depleted waste and bury it deep.
It is a metal so it does not leak out. That is not feasible let alone energy producing. Very depleted uranium means very depleted generation.
When uranium is removed it is stored in barrels with water , so the usable uranium has been used, and does not explode or melt the ass out of a drum.

Wind and solar are still only a few percent of world energy. This is AU and we are different. We have the most intensive sun, and for longer / day.
Lucas reactor is a sealed tank light water reactor for medical use and some semi conductors of electricity. It does not use any uranium solids, only radio active water.

Reactors to day still carry the same flaws as reactors built in the 70’s [un fixable] French nuclear capacity has been effectively cut in half. The fact that nuclear power has fallen on its face when it is needed most is a hint that it is not the key to world energy security.

doog,

"Lucas reactor is a sealed tank light water reactor for medical use and some semi conductors of electricity. It does not use any uranium solids, only radio active water."

That statement is false. You should consider using RoboAlbo like John does, although it gets a bit tedious reading the same guff over and over. Easier for you though.

https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/opal-multi-purpose-reactor

Opal multi-purpose reactor

ANSTO
https://www.ansto.gov.au › facilities › opal-multi-purpos...

Australia's Open Pool Australian Lightwater (OPAL) reactor is a state-of-the-art 20-megawatt multi-purpose reactor that uses low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel 20 % Commissioned 2007.
I wasn't aware they had a newer reactor.

Published on Monday, the report by experts found there was a “make do and mend” culture at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation site in Lucas Heights. The report found that as a result of the facility's old age it failed to meet modern nuclear safety standards
When was Lucas Heights established? Australia opened its only nuclear reactor in 1958.

3.30 pm 15.08.24
Solar 28.05 / MwH 2.8 c/ KwH
Hydro 96.52 9.6 c / KwH
Gas 146.59 14.6 c / KwH
Blk coal 113.67 11.3 c/ KwH
Brn coal 109.30 10.9 c / KwH

Note Doog power is bought in a time slot and in your example the supply is dying off and so is not much use so it is cheap.
In another hour it will have zero value.