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.