A bit late in the day to be bringing this up.

We've been confronted with public squabbling among the political class in the press and on air for quite some time.

The last comment I heard was ‘Most people want to get back to coal, but they are too frightened to say it’.

So, a handful of anonymous non-entities won't have much to add. Though it's always fun to watch the naive sign up to a good lambasting from the Green/Left who put these posts up - just so they CAN lambast you for being ‘wrong’.

Paul Green makes his feelings clear in the first line. It's not an attack on nuclear energy; it is an attack on Dutton and the Coalition.

Speaking of Dutton: remember that he is a politician, not to be trusted. Also remember, the Coalition is responsible for Net Zero, and that Dutton thinks the Chief Censor, Julie Inman Green is our “finest” public servant. Dutton is just feeling out ways of getting elected. He would be better off saying that he will stop immigration; stop digital ID and sacking Julie Inman Grant.

I don't give a toss about nuclear. If it were not for our kindergarten politicians falling for the carbon dioxide climate change fairy tale, we would still be getting cheap, reliable electricity from our abundant coal. Just like that great mate to some of you - Communist China is doing - with our cheap coal. So to with most of the Third World, interest in boosting their economies while we trash ours.

There's a good chance that we will be suffering blackouts and more industry exits or closure before the yapping is finished.

Fester,

Good one! As I said elsewhere, industry dropped by the same amount as emissions dropped in Germany, since they closed down nuclear.

They also punished the Greens for it, almost halving their seats in the EU parliament.

Germany is now described as the 'sick man of Europe'.

Will Canberra learn anything from the European renewable experiment? No, of course not. The idiot Bowen is telling us most nights that they are too stupid to learn.

Hi Fester,

France has few fossil fuel resources - coal, oil,
or natural gas of its own.

To increase domestic energy supply and reduce reliance on
imports, which could result in price shocks like during
the oil crisis, France turned to nuclear power.

Nuclear power was used in Germany from the 1960s until
it was phased out in April 2023.

Nuclear waste disposal was widely recognized as a major
problem with concerns being publicly expressed quite early in
the piece.

http://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-208212#:

France's electricity costs are 40% lower than Germany's but
France also produces twice as much of its electricity from
clean energy sources as Germany.

The ensuing trade conflict between Russia and other European
nations led to a shortage of fossil fuels in the EU causing
prices for electricity to shoot up - especially in Germany
where gas plants still account for a substantial part of
electricity generation.

The following link explains the costs of energy. Political
leanings are key:

http://theconversation.com/in-france-and-germany-politics-not-nationalitydictate-energy-preference-230164#:

Hi Fester,

Please accept my apologies.

I put in the wrong numbers for my first link.

Here it is again:

http://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-228212#:

"but France also produces twice as much of its electricity from
clean energy sources as Germany."

Rubbish. I'll leave you to do the research you should have done before writing that to find out why its rubbish. Hint: Germany gets over 50% of its electricity from renewables, France less than 15%.

____________________________________________________________________

Its a simple formula that is repeated in country after country, time after time - the more renewables you have the higher the retail cost of power. Still there's myriad ways to hide the facts and the pro-renewable lobby uses all of them.

One example - a nuclear plant lasts about 60 years with little maintenance. A solar or wind plant lasts at the very best 20 years with significant maintenance. So a true comparison is between the costs of a nuclear plant and 3 renewable plants ie build the solar farm, pull it down after 20 years, build it again, pull it down after 40 years, build it again. Do those calculations and you end up finding out why nuclear is so much cheaper.

Its true that we end up with nuclear waste at the end of the process. On the other hand, with solar we end up with unusable solar panels full of toxic chemicals and rare earths. Just as no one has a firm solution for nuclear waste, no one has a clear solution for solar or windmill waste. But, shush! Don't mention that

If you forgive the pun, Dutton is tilting at windmills. Nuclear scare campaigns are way too easy to launch and as we saw with the great WuFlu scare, Australians are easily scared into submission.

We will have nuclear, but its too early for that to be pushed just yet. But as we get more and more reliant of renewables, and prices continue to pressure households and encourage manufacturing to off-shore, it'll become increasingly obvious that radical measures are required.

A winter of rolling blackouts would probably push us over the line. But that's not going to happen this side of this or the next election. Still, its probably not a bad idea to stake out a position for what the people will be clamouring for by 2035.

We should also note how the whole net zero rubbish is becoming increasingly unpopular overseas. Already the second most popular party in Britain are promising to drop net zero and, following the last EU elections, the Euro-Greens are on the nose and the political establishment are looking for ways to back-track on the CO2 jihad.

As with most things, Australian will eventually catch-up - kicking and screaming the whole way.