Nuclear energy could be used to make synthetic fuels.

https://www.neimagazine.com/advanced-reactorsfusion/nuclears-pursuit-of-synfuels-11460789/?cf-view

The Nuclear Industry Association beats this drum as part of its sales pitch.

What happened to the hydrogen economy?

It took the French 15 years to power their grid on and a half times fifty years ago. Germany has spent the past fourteen years destroying their electricity supply and economy pursuing wind and solar, which erratically meet about 20 of electricity demand.

https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

Australia is insane pursuing this lunacy.

Fester,

Your comment is a jumble of half-truths pretending to be insight.

First, France’s nuclear buildout wasn’t a 15-year miracle pulled from thin air - it was a massive, centralised, and state-driven effort following an oil crisis, with an energy monopoly (Électricité de France) and strong public backing. It’s not remotely comparable to modern decentralised renewable transitions - and even then, it required enormous investment, long-term planning, and decades of maintenance.

Second, Germany’s situation is endlessly misrepresented by people eager to bash renewables. Yes, Germany made mistakes - most critically by shutting down nuclear too early. But blaming renewables for "destroying the economy" is laughable when Germany remains one of the largest, most advanced economies on Earth. In fact, renewables now provide over 50% of Germany’s electricity generation annually - not 20%. Your own IEA source shows it. You just didn’t read it (or hoped no one else would).

Germany’s issues come from a messy, incomplete transition, not from renewables being inherently unworkable. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the world. Their "erratic" nature is why grids are diversifying with storage, smart grids, and demand management - not retreating to coal and oil like frightened dinosaurs.

As for Australia being “insane” - the real insanity would be refusing to shift while the world economy moves toward decarbonisation. Clinging to the 20th century while your trading partners demand clean energy isn’t patriotism. It’s sabotage.

If you’re going to call the future "lunacy," at least bring arguments that can survive five minutes of scrutiny.

John,

Yes, and as always from you, comment chock full of dishonest and misleading statements.

50% renewables, half of which is biomass. Energy from burning wood if you like, which produces three to four times the amount of CO2 per unit energy generated as natural gas or high efficiency coal generation.

https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/PFPI-biomass-carbon-accounting-overview_April.pdf

Oh, and to the UK's embarrassment, it was revealed that its biomass was being sourced from old growth forests in British Columbia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68381160

Germany had the cheapest electricity in Europe, under which its economy flourished. It had so much electricity that it was criticised for dumping its surplus generation on the European market. Now Germany imports nearly as much electricity as France exports (net imports are about a third of France's exports due to the erratic nature of wind and solar), has nearly the highest electricity prices in Europe, and its economy is struggling.

So, fifteen years for France to supply 150% of its electricity half a century ago vs Germany supplying less than 25% of its electricity form wind and solar and destroying its economy over a similar time frame. And spruikers like you want to tell me that wind and solar are faster and cheaper?

Where will Australia plug in to when wind and solar fails us, as it will?

Fester,

You accuse me of dishonesty, yet once again, your reply is a patchwork of distortions and half-relevant points dressed up as certainty. It's also worth noting that despite your repeated accusations, you've never once been able to substantiate a single claim of dishonesty.

First, Germany’s renewable electricity is not "half biomass." In 2023, wind and solar alone accounted for about 38% of Germany’s total electricity generation - and rising. Biomass is a much smaller slice of the pie. You're clinging to outdated numbers or wildly inflating their role. (And for what it’s worth, environmentalists oppose large-scale biomass for exactly the reasons you cite.)

Second, linking a BBC article about British biomass supply to Germany’s renewable rollout is pure rhetorical bait-and-switch. Germany’s transition is centered overwhelmingly on wind (onshore and offshore) and solar PV - not burning Canadian forests.

Third, your nostalgia for Germany’s old electricity surplus conveniently omits the real cause of the current crunch: fossil fuel dependence on Russia, not renewables. Germany leaned heavily on cheap Russian gas for decades. When Putin invaded Ukraine, that supply collapsed. Blaming renewables for that is like blaming the fire department because the arsonist torched the house.

Fourth, France’s nuclear program was indeed successful - in the 1970s, under conditions utterly unlike today's market-based, decentralised energy systems. Even now, France struggles with nuclear outages and costly delays. If nuclear were fast and cheap today, we wouldn’t still be talking about it as a "future solution" half a century later.

Finally, "where will Australia plug in" is just a lazy scare-line, not a serious question. Australia already has massive pumped hydro projects underway, battery storage is scaling rapidly, and diversified grids (solar, wind, hydro, some gas) can and do maintain reliable supply. No serious planner assumes a 100% weather-dependent grid without backup and storage.

Your worldview boils down to this: if the 20th-century solution had problems, we doubled down. If the 21st-century solution has challenges, you declare it a failure.

That’s not realism. That’s fossil nostalgia masquerading as analysis.

The big unmentionable in Labour's renewable plan is that by the time
it is finished it will be time to go back and start replacing all those
solar panels and wind turbines.
Their lifetime is around 20 years, maybe more if you are prepared to
accept less output.
My own solar panels now 15 years old are down to 50% at high noon in
early January. I can buy the proverbial cup of coffee a week on them.
Well that was until Albo's $275 didn't appear ! He he!

I have seen reports that wind turbines have a 20 year life.
Sounds unlikely but, the bearings may need replacing or perhaps the
blades start showing cracks. I did read a report on the older Danish
ones are getting close to their end of life.
The costs of renewables (now you know why they are called that) never
sees that cost taken into account.