"Come off it, you were all cock-a-hoop before the election with your adulation of Mini-Me Trump Dutton. "

Well Paul I'd ask you to provide evidence for that piece of rubbish but we both know that won't work for two reasons...

1. you don't know the meaning of the word 'evidence' and
2. when asked to prove you cockamamie idiocies you always run an hide like the wimp you are.

Here's me, a year ago saying Labor would win... http://tiny.cc/l4ui001

(see how that works Paul? You make a statement and then prove its true. You should try it one day.)

How did I vote?
I. For an independent on th basis that I wanted her to get the $3.386 if possible, And I'm glad I did since she only barely got over the 4% threshold.
2. Labor

After that who cares since in these elections the only thing that matters is which of Labor and Liberal gets your higher preference.

Now the Senate was an entirely different story

Trumpster,

You didn't say Labor would win, you only referred to the probability, based on history. YOU were a swooning Trumpster, who backed Fat Clive all the way with his Trumpet Of Disaster Party. Strange that you would put Labor second, when all you have done here is ridicule the government as incompetent, Albo was a nob according to you, and you put Labor second. Please, I'm not as stupid as you believe me to be, or as stupid as the average Trumpster.

Bezza,

The $7 to $9 trillion figure from the Net Zero Australia report refers to the total investment over 35 years needed to transition Australia’s ENTIRE energy system. It’s a cumulative national investment, not a personal tax, and certainly not something that repeats every 20 years.

I've already explained this, yet you're still running around the place citing it out of context.

Your suggestion that we’d have to “start renewing the renewables” like we’re rebuilding everything from scratch misunderstands how infrastructure works. No power system lasts forever. Coal and gas plants are maintained, upgraded, and eventually replaced. Same with wind turbines and solar panels. The difference is that renewables are modular, scalable, and getting cheaper over time.

The idea that this makes renewables uniquely flawed doesn’t hold water. Infrastructure replacement happens in cycles. It doesn’t mean you start over or re-spend trillions every few decades.

And the Harbour Bridge analogy doesn’t fit. We don’t repaint the entire thing every 20 years - we maintain sections as needed. That’s how modern infrastructure is managed: continuously, in rolling cycles.

As for nuclear, it is not “just like how we managed coal-fired power.” It brings not just enormous upfront capital costs, but also very long construction timelines, decades of high operational overhead, complex regulatory obligations, long-term waste storage, and eventual decommissioning costs that are often kicked down the road.

All of that adds up. Nuclear is not cheap, fast, or simple, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make it true.

" Nuclear is not cheap, fast, or simple, and pretending otherwise doesn’t make it true."

Repeating your lies does not make them true IBM.

Fifty years ago the French built 150% of their power supply from nuclear in fifteen years.

Germany has spent the last fourteen years building less than 25% of their power supply from wind and solar.

French nuclear electricity was about a third the cost of German renewable electricity the last time I looked at a comparison.

And as Spain found out, large amounts of wind and solar can lead to a cascading failure of the entire grid. One factor in Spain's case is that a large input of wind and solar collapses the spot price which in turn can lead to dispatchable energy sources being switched off (nuclear power pays a tax per unit generation in Spain, so it gets pulled when the spot price gets close to the tax rate), making it more unstable still.

Australia is extremely dumb to be sucked in by this con.

Fester,

This is now the fourth or fifth time you've repeated the same debunked claims about France, Germany, and Spain over the last week or so - all of which have already been corrected in detail.

Worse still, you did this after telling me that repeating a lie doesn't make it true, as though I were the one who needed reminding of that.

The French nuclear buildout wasn’t magic. It was a state-led project under a different political and regulatory environment, following the oil crisis. It worked for its time, but even France is now investing heavily in renewables and struggling to maintain its aging reactors. You've heard this before - repeatedly.

Your Germany comparison ignores the role of taxes and grid levies in their household prices, and the fact that wind and solar now supply over 50% of their electricity. Again, already covered. Repeating the headline doesn’t override the facts.

As for Spain: the event was a grid separation caused by a fault, not a collapse triggered by renewables. This too has been explained - multiple times. Spot market quirks and poor contingency planning don’t invalidate the technology itself. If anything, they highlight the need for smarter integration - something engineers are already working on.

At this point, you're not engaging with the facts. You’re just recycling talking points, hoping repetition will carry the argument. But truth doesn't work that way.

If you want to keep running in circles, that's up to you. But don’t confuse echo with evidence.

John, I agree with some of your points but as far as maintenance goes,
it is worce that painting the harbour bridge because it is all over the
countryside and for wind the large cranes are needed for major maintenance.
The failure in Spain was due to lack of inertia in the system and
despite what someone on here said most of it was off for 24 hours+.
Dp ypu have a solution for lack of inertia ?
I know about the large rotary machines used for power factor
correction, but a quite large number of them would be needed.