Dear Indyvidual,

«Why only mostly, what's stopping them from going all the way ?»

Because had they completed this particular "project" then they would have to invent another to keep the population in fear of that or the other so they can justify the very existence or their regime.

John,

"We could’ve been further along by now, but instead of investing in solutions, we spent decades debating with people who think every wind turbine is a communist plot."

That is like buying a dodgy car and blaming its breakdowns on the dirty stares that people give you as you drive by. Let me again mention how France built nuclear from the mid 1970s. Do you imagine that there were no critics for the nuclear push? The French did the job one and a half times over in fifteen years. Comparing wind and solar con critics with anti-nuclear critics is like comparing pro-Israel protestors with "free Palestine" protestors. Here is a real world example of the difference:

https://news.sky.com/story/man-charged-with-murder-after-petrol-bomb-and-flamethrower-attack-at-rally-for-israeli-hostages-13378105

As for how the French did it, here is a link to a brilliant docco on the subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNjyxeBsWc

Fester,

That’s not the analogy you think it is. You're comparing the climate movement to someone buying a "dodgy car" and blaming the critics when it breaks down - but you’ve missed what I actually said.

The point was that the resistance didn’t just "criticise" - it blocked funding, delayed action, distorted public understanding, and influenced policy. That’s like deliberately slashing the tyres and then saying “See? Told you EVs were unreliable.”

As for France’s nuclear build-out, it actually proves the opposite of what you're trying to argue. Once again, the Mesmer Plan was:

- A top-down, technocratic push with no public consultation
- Driven by state control, not market forces
- Heavily resisted by critics - including bomb threats and protests
- Accomplished because the government pushed through regardless

In other words, it succeeded despite the kind of resistance that now dominates the energy transition discourse - the very thing slowing us down today. So thank you for making the case for faster, government-led deployment of clean energy - with fewer brakes from conspiracy theorists.

The whole of the east coast is interconnected + SA and Tas. Power is activated where it's needed at anytime. That is grid stability.

The political and ideological resistance of a loud minority driven by fear, identity, and tribalism.
John Daysh,
Were you to really look into this, you'd realise that it's none of those listed by you. You'd find that people are sick & tired of being fleeced of their money by these unachievable "projects".
The con artists are enjoying a great life due to incompetent & unaccountable Peter Principal qualified bureaucrats handing all that funding over after it's been taken off people who actually produce the funding which is then seized by callous Government & put into the coffers.
Much of it is invariably squandered by people supposedly following "strict" guidelines.
Bring on energy provision with as little as possible pollution however, the present tactics & technology totally don't warrant the insane splurging on "research" without foreseeable results !
Research must produce practical results not just endless guessing at huge expense ! No result, no more than standard wage !

Indyvidual,

Ah yes, “just follow the money” - the last refuge of someone who doesn’t want to look at the data. You say it’s not about fear, identity, or tribalism - and then immediately serve up a textbook example of all three.

People are sick of being fleeced? Let’s talk fleecing:

- Fossil fuel subsidies still outweigh renewable ones globally.

- The climate and health costs of pollution don’t show up on your power bill - but you still pay them, just under “hospital” and “disaster relief.”

- Meanwhile, renewables are now the cheapest form of new energy in Australia - according to AEMO, CSIRO, and the IEA, not "callous bureaucrats."

You talk about "Peter Principle-qualified" researchers - but what’s your alternative? Cut all funding unless results are immediate and guaranteed? That’s not science - that’s gambling. Scientific progress doesn’t run on ultimatums and slogans; it runs on experimentation, iteration, and yes, sometimes failure.

You want “pollution-free energy with practical results”? So does everyone else. That’s literally the point of the transition. The only thing standing in the way isn’t science - it’s politics, ideology, and reflexive opposition dressed up as concern for the taxpayer.

And if we’d started earlier, without the decades-long delay tactics from those same “sceptics,” we might already have the tech you’re now demanding.