Dutton becoming PM will coincide with the end of the Ukraine War and the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil and gas. It will also boost eastern Ukrainian coal production, which is in the Russian zone.

This will cause a a worldwide glut in fossil fuels and a consequent decline in fossil fuel prices.

That will make Dutton's only major policy, NUCLEAR Reactors, even more expensive compared to fossil fuel electricity and renewable electricity production.

Hence Dutton's Taxpayer Funded high cost nuclear dream will become unviable and be quickly forgotten.

Maverick, the problem with that scenario is that by then the old obsolete coal fired generators will have closed down.

Have a look at what companies like Copenhagen Atomics are doing.
David

Its obvious that Dutton's taxpayer funded nuclear pipe dream, if implemented, would be an absolute disaster for Australia. Even if elected Dutton's Nuks could not begin to come on line in less than 15 years, given world evidence of delays and cost overruns that would be a very optimistic forecast. With coal fired power in rapid decline and ever increasing unreliability, the majority of plants are over 40 years old, and scheduled to close by 2038, Australia needs a viable energy program based on renewables, and not some pie in the sky political pipe dream from Dutton.

Some people think that the energy debate is a political argument. It isn't. The problems with wind and solar relate to the cost of making the energy dispatchable and the environmental footprint.

For starters, commercial wind and solar generation would require a grid twice the cost of what we have currently. Given that the current grid accounts for 40% of the electricity cost, your wind and solar would need to be a third the cost of fossil fuel generation to deliver electricity at the same price.

So what about rooftop solar with battery storage? Sounds great, but apparently the cost of all those batteries would be greater than building a fleet of nuclear reactors to provide all of Australia's electricity.

But wait, there's more. With wind an solar you also need commercial storage (pumped hydro and batteries) as well as 100% gas powered generation as backup. Then there is the matter of destroying farmland and large tracts of the natural environment providing refuge for Australia's flora and fauna. Also, there is the toxic waste, soil contamination and decommissioning costs to consider.

When you consider the cost it is no wonder that there is no stand alone wind and solar system in existence. Walpole will be the first system to provide a real world example, but it is yet to be switched on. Why might that be? Of course, as cult leader Albo points out, the reason is always clear and simple: "Peter Dutton!".

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-01/australian-first-mini-pumped-hydro-scheme-wa-walpole/104655498

Yes there are many Liberal-National party TALKING POINTS revealing they (like Trump) are ideologically opposed to renewables.

The Liberal-National party - with its Billionaire constituency - is relying on votes and campaign finance for the coming Election from fossil fuel interests.

Hi Mav,

Speaking of billionaires, would you happen to know how much in subsidies Forrest and Holmes a Court have got from taxpayers? Allegedly tried to stop someone giving a talk about nuclear energy. Why might that have been?

https://x.com/BenFordhamLive/status/1801540082714939791

Are they acting in the national interest, or is it self interest by opposing something that is cheaper, and unlike wind and solar, it has many working examples producing dispatchable power at competitive costs.

Cult leader Albo doesn't want the nuclear vs renewables debate to be a technical debate. Why is that?