You are all arguing about the least important problems.
The economy is energy, never a truer word said.
Madrid yesterday Sydney tomorrow.
There seems to be a gradual dawning that renewables cannot do the job.
That recently released open letter to Australia should be compulsive reading.
In one part of that they show that to get to a full renewables system
would cost between $7 Trillion and $9 Trillion !
When you look at the cost of batteries of the scale required I can see
where they got the costs.
You do not need fancy modelling software to understand that.
Even a simple hand calculator will tell you that.
Just look at the daily KWHR and see how much a battery to carry the
whole country for just one day would cost at $1 a watt/hr.
That was the cost a while back but it is probably higher now.
It is illegal at present to call for tenders for nuclear power stations.
If Labour gets in it will be a further 3 years before the process of
getting tenders will be postponed.

The Net Zero Australia report — prepared by the University of Melbourne, University of
Queensland, and Princeton University, advised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and
Climate Council, and sponsored by the Minderoo Foundation — estimates a full renewables-only
transition would cost between $7 and $9 trillion over the next 35 years, including the
government’s “green hydrogen superpower” plans.
This is the equivalent of up to $850,000 per household—a figure quietly buried by its own
supporters as it would bankrupt the nation.[https://www.netzeroaustralia.net.au/wp-
content/uploads/2023/04/Net-Zero-Australia-Modelling-Summary-Report.pdf

You’re badly misrepresenting the report, Bezza.

Yes, the Net Zero Australia study mentions a $7–9 trillion investment - but not in the apocalyptic, renewables-only, household-bankrupting way you're implying. That figure spans 35 years and includes both domestic decarbonisation and a massive build-out of energy export infrastructure. It’s about positioning Australia as a global clean energy superpower - producing hydrogen, ammonia, clean iron and aluminium - not just keeping the lights on with wind and solar.

Framing that as “just for batteries” isn’t analysis - it’s sleight of hand.

Your $1/Wh battery scare line doesn’t stack up either. The report doesn’t propose storing the nation’s entire daily energy use in batteries. It outlines a diversified strategy: pumped hydro, gas peakers, demand flexibility, transmission upgrades - and batteries, working together.

You also leave out a key detail: the report only sees a role for nuclear if renewable growth is severely constrained or nuclear costs plummet. So no, we’re not being held back from a silver bullet.

And that "$850,000 per household" figure? Pure cherry-pick. It’s a crude division of national investment by household - ignoring that:

- Most funding is expected from private capital, not taxpayers;
- The costs are offset by avoiding climate damage, energy import bills, and shrinking fossil exports;
- And it’s a once-in-a-generation nation-building effort to future-proof the economy.

You don’t need modelling software to see what this is really about. It’s not cost - it’s comfort. And anything that disrupts it gets spun as a disaster.

"It’s about positioning Australia as a global clean energy superpower - producing hydrogen, ammonia, clean iron and aluminium - not just keeping the lights on with wind and solar."

Total fantasy, John. Rolls Royce and several other multinationals are in the process of developing production line nuclear reactors within a decade, and you are cautious and skeptical of a positive outcome. You question the safety of nuclear power, endorsing the lies of anti-nuclear activists. You question the ability of Australia to build nuclear as fast as renewables despite the fact that the French built nuclear generation six times faster and thirty-five years before the Germans built wind and solar.

Wind and solar development is way behind what is needed. Projects cannot get funding. Green hydrogen is uneconomic and probably never will be. Electricity prices are skyrocketing, and the blackout in Spain and Portugal suggests that the grid stability issues with large amounts of intermittent wind and solar input are far from resolved. Yet you think powering Australia's electrical grid with wind and solar to not only be viable, but the fastest and cheapest and most reliable source of energy? Renewables are the path to economic ruin and national destitution.

For me, it is about plentiful, cheap and reliable energy, freedom of speech, and respect and equality for all Australians. Cult leader Albo has taken the path away from those objectives during his term of incompetence.

Truer words have never been spoken:

“The Opposition has been disappointing …… but when we vote on Saturday it's a judgement on the past three years of compounding failure. And Albanese should be punished for it”.

Fester,

The Net Zero Australia report was produced by top universities and models multiple options (including high-nuclear), yet renewables come out ahead on cost, scalability, and timelines in every scenario.

Rolls-Royce might promise SMRs within a decade, but that’s been said for years. No commercial SMRs exist, and even Rolls-Royce doesn’t expect one before 2035. Meanwhile, renewables are already the cheapest new energy and are being built now.

Your well-worn France-vs-Germany example is still misleading. Again, France’s nuclear buildout was a top-down, state-led, centralised government effort in a different regulatory environment - yet even they're still investing heavily in renewables now. Germany’s mistake was relying on Russian gas, not wind and solar.

There was no actual blackout in Spain or Portugal. It was a grid separation caused by a fault and was quickly resolved, and initial assessments have confirmed that Wind and solar weren’t to blame. In fact, during the recovery, renewables helped stabilise supply, undercutting the claim that they’re inherently unreliable. Your blackout claim was debunked within hours.

Of course green hydrogen isn’t cheap yet. Neither was solar in the beginning. Costs fall with scale. Waiting around doesn’t make it happen.

And throwing in “freedom of speech” and “cult leader Albo” adds nothing. This isn’t about personal grievances. It’s about managing a global energy shift that’s already well underway.

If you genuinely care about affordable, reliable energy, then that’s great. But dismissing proven tech while romanticising theoretical nuclear is not a serious plan.

ttbn,

Yes, Labor deserves criticism for dragging its feet on key reforms. But pretending the problems are all their doing, while ignoring the wreckage they inherited, is either selective memory or deliberate spin.