Ronald Stein and co. make some fair points about the limitations of utility monopolies and the potential of nuclear power, but the article gets bogged down in ideology and ends up shooting itself in the foot.

Yes, nuclear has been unfairly demonised. Its safety record is excellent, especially compared to fossil fuels, and the newer reactor designs are good. The rising demand from AI, EVs, and population growth is real, and we absolutely need scalable, reliable solutions.

But branding wind and solar as “the worst solutions possible” is flat-out wrong. Solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new electricity generation in much of the world (check Lazard, CSIRO, IEA). They’re not perfect, but calling them “environmentally disastrous” while brushing off nuclear waste and multi-decade build times is pure spin.

Deregulation isn’t the silver bullet they make it out to be, either. The 2021 Texas blackout showed exactly what can happen when profit is prioritised over grid reliability. Electricity markets are complex. You can’t just throw in competition and expect utopia. Coordination, redundancy, and planning still matter.

While I agree utilities need to be more accountable, this idea that we can just “unleash the free market” like it’s 1980 and suddenly get 2¢ nuclear power piped directly to our homes is fantasy. Nuclear has consistently been among the most expensive energy sources to build - unless governments step in to subsidise or streamline approvals, the market won’t fix that on its own.

Nuclear probably should be part of the mix, yes, but the anti-renewables, anti-regulation ranting just makes the whole argument harder to take seriously.

Coal provides the cheapest power. If Australia was still the free enterprise country that it used to be, instead of the increasingly authoritarian, Big Government mess that it is, the private sector would be offering what was best: coal, nuclear - whatever - at prices we could afford, and they could make a profit from. That's the way it was until the Marxists took over.

Correction: until the complacent electorate allowed the Marxists to take over.

Nuclear is not our saviour. Our only way back to a prosperous Australia lies in the cessation of Net Zero and the climate scam, and ridding ourselves of liars like Chris Bowen.

We have the technology to produce electricity through fission, coal, gas, the sun, wind, tides and heat from within the Earth.

Perhaps fusion can be used to generate electricity in the future.

Having the technology isn't the problem. It comes down to cost and what we can do right now.

Let's look at Great Britain - already generating electricity from nuclear reactors.

The UK government is committed to a "a significant acceleration of nuclear" energy in the hopes that this "would represent up to around 25% of ... projected electricity demand" by 2050".

In comparison "AEMO’s Quarterly Energy Dynamics Report says renewables, including solar and wind, powered 43% of Australia’s electricity grid in the first three months of 2025 – the highest first-quarter amount in the National Energy Market’s 25-year history."

Expecting nuclear power to suddenly supply even a half of Britain's electricity in a long way off.

Electricity generation isn't just one size fits all. Just because wind and solar cannot supply a constant supply of electricity right at this moment does not devalue the contribution they make.

This appears to be the main argument about wind/solar generation. They cannot supply all of our electricity right now so we should stop their expansion.

Hmm is this the same free enterprise system that gave us sawdust in bread, children working coal mines, horse meat in pies, sugar syrup sold as honey, cheap olive oil sold as virgin, the water they add to meat to make it weigh more, melamine in baby formula etc etc?

I'll pass thanks.