The Nuclear Option: Atomic Solution to Australia’s Energy Crisis

In the blink of an eye, Australia’s media circus has finally woken up to the scale and scope of Australia’s self-inflicted power pricing and supply calamity. More ink has been spilt in the last few weeks on the subject than in the whole of the last decade.

Wind power capital, South Australia’s blackouts and load shedding (a common occurrence since the closure of its last coal-fired power plant in May last year) attracted attention and plenty of sniggers from those lucky enough to reside in other states, and made it the butt of international jokes.

However, 20% hikes in retail power prices across the country have turned those sniggers to snarls, as every Australian recognises that they are all in the same boat.

With widespread, Summer blackouts now guaranteed in every Eastern state when the wind stops blowing, not just wind ‘powered’ South Australia, every mainstream journalist is now an energy expert, pontificating about ‘baseload’ (critical), ‘batteries’ (mythical) and the power market (terminal).

However, all but an intelligent few are talking about the obvious solution to Australia’s energy woes.

Sure enough, coal-fired plant will continue to power Australians for the foreseeable future. But, for as long as politicians on both sides of the fence remain wedded to the concept that carbon dioxide gas is ‘pollution’, responsible for killing the planet (rather than greening it), energy sources that emit CO2 will have plenty of ill-informed enemies.

That Australia does not have any nuclear power plants astonishes the French, Americans, Canadians, Japanese and Chinese; just to name a few of the 30 countries where you will find nearly 450 nuclear reactors currently operating – their combined output accounts for over 11% of global electricity production – with another 15 countries currently building 60 reactors among them.

If, as we are repeatedly berated from on high, CO2 gas (the kind generated by ‘dirty’ coal-fired power plants, not ‘clean/green’ Toyota Prius motorcars, of course) really is public enemy number one, there really is only one meaningful solution. Meaningful, that is, if you want to have power as and when you need it, rather than as Mother Nature determines to occasionally deliver it; and free of ‘dreaded’ CO2.

Australia has the largest uranium reserves in the world and is among its largest exporters. However, it not only has failed to develop a nuclear power industry, it has legislation which prohibits nuclear power generation in any form.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, specifically prohibit nuclear fuel fabrication, power, enrichment or reprocessing facilities.

Maybe one day, Australia will grow up and join the rest of the world. Although it will probably take a run of mass blackouts this Summer to shake our political betters out of their entrenched adolescence.

Here’s Euan Mearns spelling out why nuclear power in Australia makes perfect sense.

The Australian Energy Conundrum
Energy Matters
Euan Mearns
14 August 2017

The Continent of Australia is one of the most energy rich countries in the world. And yet the state of South Australia has become blackout capital of the OECD. Nine coal-fired power stations have been closed and some renewable energy deployed in its place. Electricity prices are soaring to the extent that Energy Matters’ readers are alarmed. Is there a connection between these events?

In 2016, Australia exported 403 million tonnes of coal against domestic consumption of 89 million tonnes. It makes no sense for the Australian government to burden its citizens with more expensive and less reliable electricity if the coal that Australians would have burned is simply exported. If the Australian government is genuinely concerned about CO2 emissions, it should begin by closing down its coal export industry.


Australia has by far the largest uranium reserves in the World [ref 1] (Figure 1) and in 2016 was the world’s third largest producer (Figure 2). Kazakhstan and Canada beat Australia into third place. In 2007, Australian production was almost as large as Canadian but since then Canadian production has grown while Australian production has declined (Figures 3, 4). What lies behind these trends? The Cigar Lake uranium deposit is one of the richest and largest in the world and after significant delays it eventually came on line in 2014 explaining the expansion of Canadian production.

Most of Australia’s production comes from the Olympic Dam deposit, which is one of the world’s largest. However, unlike Cigar lake which produces a high grade ore, Olympic Dam is primarily a copper mine where uranium is produced as a by-product. Copper was in a bear market from 2011 to 2016, declining from $4.5 to $2 / lb in that 6 year period. I suspect that mine operator BHP Billiton will have reduced copper production whilst simultaneously reducing uranium production.

Figure 1 Australia has by far the largest uranium reserves in the world, much of it located in the Olympic Dam copper deposit. [Data from ref 1]

Figure 2 Australia has the third highest uranium production.

Figure 3 Kazakhstan is the new kid on the block and has seen production quadruple since 2007. Note how Australian production has declined while Canadian production has grown. See text for details.

Figure 4 Same as Figure 3 but plotted as percent.

Figure 5 CO2 intensity of electricity generation for selected countries from Shrink That Footprint.


At the heart of the Australian energy conundrum is the fact that despite this wealth of uranium the country produces zero nuclear power. I suspect the reason for this is the abundance of coal and 20+ years ago it was simpler and cheaper for Australia to go down the coal route. But Australia was still opening new coal plants as recently as 7 years ago (Bluewaters 2, WA in 2010) (Figure 9). Perhaps commenters can advise what underpinned Australia’s energy policy back then?

In contrast, Canada has large nuclear and hydro electric production and has a low CO2 intensity of electricity on a par with Sweden and France. Australia, heavily dependent upon coal in power generation has one of the most CO2 intense electricity supplies in the world (Figure 5). We have made the case on a number of occasions that if a country wants to reduce CO2 emissions then nuclear power provides the proven route that is now being followed by China, India, the UAE, Poland and Russia, to name but a few countries. Australia has joined Germany in trying to achieve decarbonisation of power supplies using wind and solar.

Australia has the world’s fourth largest coal reserves (Figure 6) and is also the fourth largest coal producer in the world (Figure 7).

Figure 6 Australia has the fourth largest coal reserves in the World. Data from the 2017 BP Statistical Review.

Figure 7 Australia has the world’s fourth highest coal production where most of the production is exported (Figure 11). Note how China is punching way above its weight in terms of production in relation to the reserve base. The reserves / production (ROP) in China is 72 years compared with 381 years in the USA.

Figure 8 The NEM = The National Electricity Market that is the connected grid of Eastern Australia. Fossil fuel accounts for 87% of generation [ref 2]. Year unknown.

Figure 9 Coal Fired power stations in Australia [ref 2].

Figure 10 Closed coal-fired power stations in Australia [ref 2].


Figure 8 [ref 2] shows just how dependent Australian power generation is on coal (77.2%) in the NEM (National Electricity Market) which covers the eastern grid. The SWIS (SW interconnected system) has 50% coal and 35% gas. Figure 9 shows the age of operational stations spanning 1964 to 2010. Australia, rich in both coal and uranium, faced a choice between coal fired or nuclear power. There is little doubt that coal is cheaper than nuclear and this simple economic fact probably drove Australia in the direction of having one of the most coal and CO2 intensive power systems in the world.

Figure 11 Chart from Energy Matters’ Global Energy Graphed data base. The blue bars = production and the red bars = consumption. The balance is the difference between the two representing either exports (as here) or imports. Australia is a major exporter of coal. The dip down in recent years reflects weakening demand for coal globally.

Figure 12 Electricity consumption is often a symbol of prosperity. After many years of growing consumption, Australian electricity consumption has plateaued since 2011.


Figure 11 shows Australian coal production (blue) and consumption (red) and the large export balance (black). Peak consumption was 2008 and one has to suspect that the post-2008 decline in coal consumption has something to do with the finance crash. Looking at total electricity generation in Australia (Figure 12) we see that generation peaked in 2011 and then flattened out. I believe we are seeing a number of variables in play in Figure 11 causing Australia’s coal consumption to decline: 1) closure of 9 coal-fired power stations (Figure 10) 2) finance crash and 3) growth of subsidised wind power. This pretty well replicates the story seen in many OECD countries like the UK and the USA.

The main purpose of looking at energy in Australia is to get to the root of energy policy and blackouts. Figure 10 shows the 9 coal fired stations totalling 3559 MW closed since 2012, presumably in pursuit of a CO2 reduction target. The main point I want to make at this stage is that there is zero sense in Australia closing down domestic coal-fired power for as long as it is exporting large amounts of coal to other countries. If Australia is genuinely concerned about CO2 emissions then it must surely close down its coal mining industry and commit to leaving the coal in the ground forever. I am not for one moment suggesting this should happen and simply pointing out that it is plain stupid to deprive your own citizens of cheap reliable power while exporting cheap coal to other countries.

Figure 13 Australian oil production, consumption and balance from Global Energy Graphed.



Oil is the one energy resource that Australia is short of. In the year 2000 oil production and consumption was in balance, but since then consumption has grown steadily while production has declined. In 2016, oil imports stood at 650,000 bpd.

Figure 14 Australia natural gas production, consumption and export balance.


Natural Gas

The Northwest Shelf of Australia is a rich gas province where, for example, the Gorgon gas field alone is reported to contain 35 tcf of gas. Up until 1988 production and consumption were in balance and then the advent of LNG allowed Australia to commence gas exports which are currently growing exponentially. Many of Australia’s gas fields lie far offshore leading to the development and deployment of the world’s first floating LNG train.

Energy Mix and Per Capita Trends

Like electricity consumption, per capita energy consumption is a crude metric for prosperity. Between 1965 and 2006 per capita energy consumption doubled in Australia but since 2006 per capita consumption has gone into reverse. High energy prices is one likely component of the explanation. But CO2 policies have probably also left their mark with 9 coal fired power stations closed since 2012. The main contraction in energy consumption is coal. Note how new renewables, wind and solar, barely register which is the case in many OECD countries.

Figure 15 Global Energy Graphed. Primary energy consumption in Australia 1965-2016. Something clearly happened in 2006 to cause the trend of rising energy consumption to cease.

Figure 16 Global Energy Graphed. Per capita energy consumption peaked in 2006.


Australians have a relatively high per capita consumption which is often the case in countries that have large energy resources, and for example per capita consumption in the UK is below 3 toe per capita per annum. Australia is a big, hot, energy hungry country.

Concluding Thoughts

If Australia wants to be serious about reducing global CO2 emissions it should begin by closing down its coal export business before shutting down domestic coal-fired power stations.

If Australia is serious about decarbonising its domestic electricity supplies while maintaining system reliability it should develop a domestic nuclear power program ahead of installing erratic renewable sources.

New renewables currently represent a tiny fraction of primary energy consumption and if these are implicated in recent blackouts and electricity price increases, policy makers should really take note of the harm being done.


  1. World Nuclear Association
  2. Australian Parliamentary Report

Energy Matters

Texan Twins: nuclear plants powered through Hurricane
Harvey while wind power completely downed tools.


And it’s not just engineers pushing for a nuclear future, there is a growing rump of climate alarmists demanding an atomic future, too.

Michael Shellenberger drank the Kool Aid early on, but has had his road to Damascus moment; declaring that the experiment with wind and solar is a monumental failure. Shellenberger may have been wedded to the wind and sun in the beginning, but now recognises that it is impossible to power an economy on sunshine and breezes.

Nuclear must replace coal and gas after ‘failure of renewables’
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
12 September 2017

One of the world’s leading new-generation environmental thinkers has said the “renewable energy experiment” with wind and solar has failed.

Michael Shellenberger, a former renewables advocate to Barack Obama when he was president, is now a global champion for nuclear energy, which he said was the only option to replace coal and gas on a global scale.

“Wind and solar are only useful for leveraging the fossil fuel mix,” Shellenberger told The Australian from California.

“They have to have back-up, they are doubling the cost of electricity and they have big environmental impacts,” he said. “All existing renewable technologies do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.”

He said opposition to nuclear was “like a superstitious religious belief”. Mr Shellenberger was named a Time magazine Hero of the Environment in 2008 and is co-author of an “ecomodernist manifesto” that aims to decouple human wellbeing from environmental destruction.

The view of “eco pragmatists” like Mr Shellenberger is that technology should be harnessed to take the pressures of human population off the environment.

He will visit Australia in Nov­ember to promote a rethink on nuclear at a minerals industry conference. “Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear,” he said. “I changed my mind as I realised you can’t power a modern economy on solar and wind.”

Mr Shellenberger said Germany had built more solar and wind last year but got less electricity from them because of weather conditions.

He said better education was needed about advances in nuclear technology, together with “a leap forward in scientific literacy about radiation”.

One of the safety advances was new and better fuels that would not melt down for many hours after a loss of coolant.

Mr Shellenberger said there was a widespread misunderstanding about the radiation health impact of disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

“The reality is the death toll from Chernobyl in 1986, after 20 years, is less than 200 people.”

“In what other issue does the science say one thing so clearly but such a vocal group refuses to accept the evidence,” Mr Shellenberger said.

“Climate change is apparently the most important issue in the world but it is not important enough to get some pretty basic facts straight,” he said.

Mr Shellenberger has written extensively and gives lectures on how nuclear has been thwarted by environmental campaigns, often with the aid of the fossil fuel industry. He said getting nuclear right would make renewables redundant.

“When you do nuclear, what additional benefit does wind and solar bring?” he said.

“All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels.

“Nuclear is the only technology that can lift everyone out of poverty and reverse human impact.”
The Australian

Michael Shellenberger: tree hugger goes nuclear.


Like any convert, Shellenberger demonstrates even greater zeal as an advocate for nuclear, than he did for wind and solar. What he gets absolutely right is that nuclear makes wind and solar redundant.

The only justification for the $3 billion of power consumers’ money thrown in subsidies at wind and solar in this country each year is the (wholly unsubstantiated) claim that they reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

That claim never passes the pub test, simply because it ignores the need to have coal or gas-fired plant constantly online to prevent the grid from collapsing every time things cloud-up, the sun goes down; or when breezes turn to zephyrs or zephyrs turn to gales.

With nuclear power, as Shellenberger points out, you have a CO2 emissions free power source that doesn’t need anything else to prop it up.

Like a rabid dog with his favourite bone, climate alarmists are never going to let man-made carbon dioxide gas go.

Logic, reason and science has nothing to do with it: to them, CO2 is ‘pollution’ and, that dogged belief will be around for a generation or so.

Unless nuclear is on the table, the climate cult will continue to push wind and solar power, resulting in the inevitable destruction of the grid. Witness South Australia’s power pricing and supply calamity.

If the alarmists are in bitter earnest about reducing CO2 emissions, then they should (like Shellenberger) be pushing nuclear power with the same maniacal zeal that they have been pushing wind and solar.

Meanwhile, old King Coal keeps chugging away:

World building new coal plants faster than it shuts them
The Australian
Simon Benson
13 September 2017

Nations around the world are building coal-fired power plants at a faster rate than those being decommissioned. The plants under construction reflect a 10 per cent increase to the total global generation powered by coal.

New electricity generated by coal-fired plants will outstrip that which was retired in 2015 and 2016 by a factor of five.

With Australia facing a policy crisis over energy security and the winding back of reliance on coal, construction of new coal-fired power plants was increasing in at least 35 countries, according to data analysis supplied to the ­Nationals by the federal ­parliamentary library. China has 299 new coal generation units under construction, followed by India which is building 132. Australia’s closest neighbour, Indo­nesia, was planning a further 32.

Nuclear countries, including Japan and South Africa, were also increasing their exposure to coal-powered investment, with 21 new plants between them. Vietnam was building 34.

The data was requested by Nationals senator and party whip John Williams, who has argued that the carbon emissions produced by the new plants worldwide would eclipse Australia’s total carbon emission profile.

“We don’t have a tent over Australia … emissions are going up around the world because of these generators being built,” Senator Williams told The Australian. “We are bowing down to the green agenda which will make no difference to the world’s emissions.

“It makes no sense. We will de-industrialise Australia and let everything be manufactured overseas with higher emissions.”

The parliamentary library paper showed that 321 gigawatts of new generation would come from coal plants under construction globally. In 2015 and 2016, total coal generation retired amounted to 64 gigawatts.

Worldwide, the paper showed, there were currently 5973 units of coal-fired power generation. There are often multiple power-generating units within a power station. The number of new units under construction totalled 621.

It would take until 2057 for Australia’s 16 remaining coal-fired power stations to reach the end of their working life, with four slated to shut in the next decade.

The Australian

Reports of the death of coal have been greatly exaggerated. Despite throwing tens of billions of dollars at wind and solar, Australia continues to rely upon coal-fired power plants and will do so for generations to come.

In Australia, the choice is simple: ignore carbon dioxide gas and keep powering on with a coal-fired fleet; or start building the nuclear plant that should have been built 20 years ago.

In either case, it will require Commonwealth government money. AGL & Co have designs on raping and pillaging in the power market, using highly inefficient and expensive Open Cycle Gas Turbines as peaking plant to cover daily wind and solar output collapses. As the owner of both a reliable (but highly inefficient way of generating electricity – OCGTs) and chaotic wind and solar plant, AGL has set itself up as Australia’s version of California’s Enron (see our post here). AGL has absolutely no interest in providing reliable and affordable power: its fortunes lie in renewable subsidies and the ensuing chaos delivered by sunshine and breezes.

The $60 billion that has ($15bn to date) and will be ($45bn to 2030) squandered on subsidies to wind and solar would have built 10 large nuclear reactors, capable of delivering CO2 free power, 24 x 365, irrespective of the weather.

If CO2 gas really is ‘pollution’, there is only one solution.

Over to you Malcolm.

Malcolm, if CO2 really is ‘pollution’, there is only one solution.


About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Peter Pronczak says:

    The Australian anti-nuclear policy is hypocritical as long as the Lucas Hights reactor operates. Possibly it’s toleration is in case an important pollie requires nuclear isotope medical tests; just as they all have operations in only the best of private hospitals – the public system would suddenly improve were it mandatory for them to be operated on there.

    There is also the following about BOM (unfortunately I can’t include the maps in the article):
    The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for years has been peddling fake climate maps on its website. Yes, seriously, check out the climate maps for yourself and you’ll see they are littered with errors you can discover with primary school-level maths. For example, large areas of thousands of square kilometres have average temperatures identified as being higher than the maximum temperature of a given period.
    Just go to the BOM’s home page at and click the “Climate Data Online” button that’s at the bottom of the page. Then at the left menu click on “Maps – recent conditions” and select “Temperature”. There’s an archive button that provides maps back to 1911. It won’t take long to find numerous astounding errors.
    The Australian Alert Service (a complimentary copy of AASVol19No6 8FEB2017 may be requested by calling 1800 636 432) contacted consulting climatologist William Kininmonth, who was head of the BOM’s National Climate Centre and Australia’s delegate to the World Meteorological Organisation’s Commission for Climatology for 18 years. Kininmonth noted “there is clearly a problem with the methodology” and “the maps and other manipulated data should not be considered as ‘climate records’. The only true climate records are the data stored in the station tables.” He pointed out “bullseyes” on the maps indicating a location where data was likely used. The BOM clearly ignored other data, making ridiculous assumptions instead.
    One example showing up the climate maps as a fraud zeros in on the Great Australian Bight at the WA/SA border. From 1911 to 1945 temperatures on the maps are very noticeably cooler, yet the Eucla station opened in 1876 and daily temperature records are available for most of this period. The Eucla station data on the BOM website shows a record high temperature of 49.3 °C, on 17 December 1912. But the colour-coded BOM map for this day clearly indicates the maximum temperature at Eucla was between 24 °C and 27 °C—an error of at least 22°C! Similarly, on 3 April 1938 the maximum temperature at Eucla was recorded at 41.1°C, but the BOM map shows 21-24°C. Numerous similar errors occur on other days and in different regions.
    The Kalgoorlie Miner on 9 February 1906 issued a report from the Western Australian Government Astronomer William Cooke that on 21 January 1906, “Eucla, on our eastern boundary, registered 123.2 deg. [50.7°C], the highest ever recorded there, and one of the highest records for Australia.” The West Australian on 25 July 1934 confirmed this record with the findings of the Divisional Meteorologist Mr E.B. Curlewis: “The highest temperature ever recorded under a Stevenson screen in Western Australia was 123.2 [50.7 °C] at Eucla in 1906. The Stevenson screen was used by all weather bureaus in the Commonwealth for securing offcial shade temperatures.” For some reason the BOM has deleted this record from its books. One wonders if the early pioneers’ diligent daily use of the Stevenson screen was all for nothing, now that computer-generated maps can create errors of tens of degrees.
    Climate researcher Lance Pidgeon wrote a letter to Bob Baldwin MP on 3 February 2015 highlighting several errors, yet the same errors persist on the BOM website more than two years later. The maps are an embarrassment to the BOM, but of far more concern is that this Federal Government department is pushing a political climate-change agenda that will lead to the destruction of the Australian economy.

  2. The greens are ignorant and stupid people who have been fooled by the scum who feed them garbage through equally stupid universities. They are dragging the country backwards. The bastards should be put last on the ballot paper. Australia has no other alternative, if the country does not use it then other greedy countries will take it from you just like they are taking your land from under your feet. Atomic power will bring down the power costs but these idiots will do anything to prevent progress. Stupid universities like Griffith, teach rubbish like animal farts are causing global warming. If you are stupid enough to believe the rubbish spewed out by these ignorant, stupid people then it serves you right. Get rid of the Green scum.

  3. Has STT become a mouth piece for the nuclear industry?????

    • STT is a mouthpiece for reliable, affordable and secure power supplies. Nuclear, gas, coal, hydro and geothermal fit that criteria. France is nuclear powered, doesn’t suffer blackouts and enjoys power prices half of those suffered in South Australia. Only an anti-nuke dinosuar would advocate against it, or someone with shares in Glencore.

    • The truth is Helen no matter what agenda our Left leaning MSM may run, nuclear generation technology has a proven track record. Unlike any of the green/Left’s favourite generation technologies, nuclear provides safe, reliable, affordable and despatchable electricity.
      In a country that’s well blessed with bountiful coal reserves, as is Australia, nuclear generation isn’t cost competitive with coal without a “price on carbon”, God forbid. Nonetheless there are good arguments for the development of a comprehensive, vertically integrated nuclear industry (including generation) in South Australia, our wind mad, mendicant, state with the world’s highest priced electricity.

    • Since the beginning of Dr. Helen Caldicott’s call for nuclear disarmament/dismantling, I have been in 100% support of her leadership, however, having had direct experience of industrial wind turbines here in rural Ontario, the nuclear energy option makes more sense.
      The sooner industrial scale wind turbines are turned off, dismantled, reused and recycled the better!

  4. Nuclear power will never happen, save maybe demonstrable risk of total collapse. Too many NIMBYs and very loud “Greens”. We will struggle on with coal and gas till they deplete, it will give Hanson Young and Di Natali to keep whining about

  5. STT tells us that its posts are widely read by our political classes, I sincerely hope they read Paul’s post. Breeding has given me a “left” brain, however, history will also show the idiocy of this period. Unfortunately it is always after the fact (or not so factual).

  6. Of course nuclear power is the solution – it is painfully obvious – and with a clear transition to nuclear power as the baseload guarantee, a transition through fossil fuel and gas use becomes acceptable, so long as we are looking at a short term transition of six to ten years – A good article

    It is the answer – There is NO other answer!

  7. In my last year of secondary school during the early 1960s the subjects of Physics & Chemistry were part of the NSW curriculum for anyone who wanted to obtain a real education – not the enfeebled subject of “Science” that is “taught” to students these days. In that last year of school, us kids studied the basic principles of nuclear fission & fusion and learned how energy could be generated from the nuclear process. That was seen to be the future for any technologically-advanced country – as Australia aspired to be in those days. I remember our class was shown a 16mm black & white film about the future expectations for nuclear power generation. It was assumed that electrical energy would eventually become so cheap that the main cost to consumers would simply be covering the outlays to establish and maintain the reticulation network – the poles and wires.
    That was an era when Australian universities excelled and their professorial staff included super-stars such as the former paratrooper Harry Messel – academics who kept Australia at the cutting edge of scientific achievement and ensured that high educational standards were delivered – not the dumbed-down and highly-politicised ideological cesspit into which Australian academia has now descended. By 1960 Australia was one of four countries at the forefront of computer technology – Harry Messel himself organised the building of a mainframe on the Sydney University campus – “SILLIAC” – based on the design of its parent in Illinois. They were the days when we all thought that Australia had a great future ahead of it. But then it all slipped away.
    Now – as Australia plunges towards national bankruptcy because the country’s wealth is being increasingly squandered by our unworthy, spineless politicians – aided and abetted by an incompetent, self-serving bureaucracy – our manufacturing industry is fast disappearing due to insane energy costs while our various educations systems turn out cohorts of students whose standards are falling further and further behind their equivalents in other countries – countries that were once considered to be Third World and to which Australia used to provide foreign aid. What an embarrassment.
    The reality is that we now live in a failing nation where the scientifically-illiterate political and media classes and the kleptocracy that runs the corporative world simply act as marionettes on a string to the real puppet-masters of Australian politics – the malignant, scaremongering Greens – a cabal of political opportunists who drive their self-serving Labor & Liberal colleagues before them like the herd of sheep that they are. Tell me – what did the average hard-working Aussie ever do to merit the current pathetic incumbent of The Lodge and the spineless stooges who put him there – or that Opposition person who is waiting to take his place? These unworthy politicians are destroying our country – they are not worth spitting on.
    I weep for the Australia that my kids and grandchildren are about to inherit as our beloved country slides into social and economic impoverishment. If only we had a few leaders of the calibre of Harry Messel – individuals who would not cower before self-serving political fools such as the duplicitous Greens and their psycho ideologies.

    • I share your concerns Paul regarding the mess our kids and grand kids will inherit unless there are dramatic changes in this country.  The destruction of the electricity industry is but one example of the disastrous social and economic cost of successive governments Labor and LaborLite blindly, opportunistically, pursuing flawed ideological agendas.  With the march of the cultural Left elite through our institutions and the conservative side of politics cowed into a meek acceptance of Leftist ideology we are are on the same slippery slope that now sees Venezuela, a once prosperous country, rich in natural resources and until very recently a pin-up example of our Leftist elite now sliding inexorably into the socialist abyss.

  8. Bit of a shame nuclear power is banned by an Act of parliament – which needs to changed urgently – given the level of common sense by our current bunch of politicians we have a lot of work to do – meanwhile Malcolm still believes in the RET and that his ‘snowy’ scheme will fix their backup issue – totally insane and the country continues its slide into economic oblivion.

    • Paul, I also learned from Harry Messel’s science books and concur totally with your sentiments. Last week at a ‘gathering’ a number of young people at it implored the older persons to take the time and make the effort to fight for them in this insidious battle to reclaim our country from the ‘current pathetic incumbent .. and the pathetic stooges who put him there’ plus from the institutional illness that gives voice and advice to the incumbent and pathetic stooges you talk about – many young people know there is a problem and they want it fixed but are too busy struggling in their day to day lives to get their heads around the issues in detail and they don’t have the time to save themselves – it’s up to the oldies to save our children and grandchildren from the ‘incompetent stooges’ who are much more real in effect then the ‘towers of Babylon called wind turbines’ which are false gods.

  9. Peter Pronczak says:

    A school of thought believes when technological progress stops, it’s because fools are in government. It’s a bit hard to argue against when all that’s been happening for the past 40 years are public subsidised talkfests for head nodders’ holidays at home & abroad.

    As part of the National Competition Policy (NCP) and privatisation of public captive market assets, what remains in public hands must be treated as having to return a profit so that private companies can have a competitive ‘level playing field’ or “Principle of Competitive Neutrality”. In addition, the ‘single desk model’ has been divided into generation, distribution and retailing, with each required to make profits.
    Under single desk public ownership, there was no profit margin involved, we paid what it cost.

    Under NCP generators are required to calculate the price of electricity every half hour with hedging in quarterly blocks. The required forward hedging (spot market trading) formula; page 97, ICRC Report 6 June-2017, Appendix 4.
    Spot market hedging has an anticipated cost range of $14,200MWh (mega watt hour) to minus $1,000MWh. The current price is about $100MWh.
    The -$1,000 price is interesting as generators will pay distributors and retailers to take their electricity. If they don’t absorb the bonus, it will be passed on to consumers.
    So cost/profit is calculated by a complex formula like the maths that put man on the moon.

    What it all means is that science knows little of how the Earth works.
    Just as the cause of gravity is not known, neither is what causes the climate to change.
    But price manipulation is well known.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: