Australia Institute data finds state and federal subsidies for coal, gas and oil products increased 10% in past year, growing at a faster pace than funding to NDIS
Considering the surveillance state our major political parties seem hell bent on establishing you know the government would just mandate a black box be installed next to every fuel tank that uploaded your road usage to Palantir so they could calculate your road usage taxes. Right?
I would imagine that given your username you wouldn’t be in too big a rush to give the government a mandate to invade even more deeply into our affairs.
With regards to “doing” renewables… Yes, we should!
Let’s face it, the 2 camps right now are:
Burn things we dug out of the ground, spent a bunch of time and energy refining then shipped to a more proximate location.
Steal power from the big ball of fusion fire in the sky, steal power from the big fuck off mass of air our planet is wrapped in, steal power from all that water sloshing around the dry bits of the planet, or occasionally lets dig a deep (but really narrow) hole and steal the power from the ground.
Eventually even the most rusted on climate change deniers are going to have to admit that, in this case, theft make a lot of sense.
Especially once we start seeing $4+ a litre thanks to an unconvicted pedophile in another country trying to act like a big man and picking fights he doesn’t understand.
The sun is an amazing source of energy……when it’s hitting solar panels, solar panels that are incredibly inefficient and inconsistent. It’s the times when the sun isn’t up that is the bigger issue, and it’s one that there currently is no feasible solution to that runs entirely on “renewables”. I say “renewables” in quotes because none of the things that make harnessing the suns power (or the wind or waters) and storing it is actually renewable, all relying on endless destructive mining of non-renewable materials along with endless dumping of non-recyclable and hazardous material. That’s not even mentioning the sheer land area needed to go full “renewable only”, or the costs and time it would take to get there.
Nuclear is the only viable option to go carbon neutral. Unfortunately we’re going to destroy the country physically and economically before everyone realises this.
I’m not going to get too deeply into this because frankly I am not qualified. However people who I know that are well informed have talked about what it will take to overcome the cost and lead time issues with nuclear. Apparently there are two methods, one is we all agree to pay, A LOT, to cover the capital expenditure required to get a functional nuclear grid off the ground. The other involves a time machine and a jaunt back to the late 70s early 80s to squeeze an extra generation of nuclear R&D in.
Nuclear is either a great long term goal, or a smoke screen.
Just using publicly available figures, in 2025 worldwide nuclear generated 2667 TWh. In 2024 Australias energy generation was 265 TWh. So we would need to generate 10% of the total worldwide nuclear output just to supply demand in Australia. That’s a phenomenal amount of construction we would need just to match today’s demand.
Plus have you seen the amount of material involved in constructing a nuclear powerplant, they don’t grow on trees and they are certainly not small. And yes I know we get to talk about SMRs now, they aren’t ready yet, and will only ever be a component in an energy mix.
Inevitably when we talk about 20-50 year lead times and trillion dollar investments to meet current demand if we go nuclear the offered solution is to maintain coal and gas, put all that together and the economy and ecology arguments don’t seem to hold water.
Plus you seem to assume renewable generation and storage technology are not improving at a rate of knots. Or that we can’t recycle and remanufacture. Plus as we are all about to experience, local production and distribution are often significantly more resilient than highly centralised networks.
Australia should have owned solar technology, we did so much of the initial work to make it mass manufacturable but we as a Country gave up on it because the people who actually make money off our resources didn’t want anything upsetting the coal applecart. It’s too late for us to be the technology and industrial leaders in this sector, let’s not fail to embrace it as consumers just so we can continue to line the same pockets.
Plus so much of this is ideological. I honestly have no fixed preference when it comes to which technology we use going forward. If a sound case could be made for nuclear energy being the absolute best way to go forward I would give it my full backing, but it’s just not there. And I really don’t want my power to be 8x more expensive at wholesale level (who knows how much on my power bill) just so team nuclear gets to have the win.
Cool, you footing the bill? Because the upfront costs of building out enough nuclear to replace just the current coal plants is going to lead to skyrocketing energy costs. But if you can front the billions it would cost nobody is going to stop you. However what is your plan for the next 15+ years it would take to build the fleet of nuclear powerplants? Since you have decided renewables are evil is the plan to ban them from being deployed while we build out nuclear, keep burning coal and gas during that time? Renewables keep getting cheaper to deploy, are you going to institute a world wide ban on further R&D until Australia finishes its nuclear rollout so we don’t have the equation slipping further into imbalance.
Also our power grids are actively degrading under neglect thanks to deregulation and asset sales, you going to renationalise all that so we can rationalise & remediate transmission costs or are we labouring under the misguided hope that we won’t have bad actors trying to profiteer off the lines and poles?
I get it, I wish we had got onboard with nuclear back when the economics would have made it a home run and social anxiety was the biggest blocker, we missed that boat and now the paradigm has shifted.
I fully believe nuclear should have a role in our energy market, but instituting a regressive authoritarian society to make it a reality just doesn’t seem like a smart decision.
Considering the surveillance state our major political parties seem hell bent on establishing you know the government would just mandate a black box be installed next to every fuel tank that uploaded your road usage to Palantir so they could calculate your road usage taxes. Right?
I would imagine that given your username you wouldn’t be in too big a rush to give the government a mandate to invade even more deeply into our affairs.
With regards to “doing” renewables… Yes, we should!
Let’s face it, the 2 camps right now are:
Eventually even the most rusted on climate change deniers are going to have to admit that, in this case, theft make a lot of sense.
Especially once we start seeing $4+ a litre thanks to an unconvicted pedophile in another country trying to act like a big man and picking fights he doesn’t understand.
The sun is an amazing source of energy……when it’s hitting solar panels, solar panels that are incredibly inefficient and inconsistent. It’s the times when the sun isn’t up that is the bigger issue, and it’s one that there currently is no feasible solution to that runs entirely on “renewables”. I say “renewables” in quotes because none of the things that make harnessing the suns power (or the wind or waters) and storing it is actually renewable, all relying on endless destructive mining of non-renewable materials along with endless dumping of non-recyclable and hazardous material. That’s not even mentioning the sheer land area needed to go full “renewable only”, or the costs and time it would take to get there.
Nuclear is the only viable option to go carbon neutral. Unfortunately we’re going to destroy the country physically and economically before everyone realises this.
I’m not going to get too deeply into this because frankly I am not qualified. However people who I know that are well informed have talked about what it will take to overcome the cost and lead time issues with nuclear. Apparently there are two methods, one is we all agree to pay, A LOT, to cover the capital expenditure required to get a functional nuclear grid off the ground. The other involves a time machine and a jaunt back to the late 70s early 80s to squeeze an extra generation of nuclear R&D in.
Nuclear is either a great long term goal, or a smoke screen.
Just using publicly available figures, in 2025 worldwide nuclear generated 2667 TWh. In 2024 Australias energy generation was 265 TWh. So we would need to generate 10% of the total worldwide nuclear output just to supply demand in Australia. That’s a phenomenal amount of construction we would need just to match today’s demand.
Plus have you seen the amount of material involved in constructing a nuclear powerplant, they don’t grow on trees and they are certainly not small. And yes I know we get to talk about SMRs now, they aren’t ready yet, and will only ever be a component in an energy mix.
Inevitably when we talk about 20-50 year lead times and trillion dollar investments to meet current demand if we go nuclear the offered solution is to maintain coal and gas, put all that together and the economy and ecology arguments don’t seem to hold water.
Plus you seem to assume renewable generation and storage technology are not improving at a rate of knots. Or that we can’t recycle and remanufacture. Plus as we are all about to experience, local production and distribution are often significantly more resilient than highly centralised networks.
Australia should have owned solar technology, we did so much of the initial work to make it mass manufacturable but we as a Country gave up on it because the people who actually make money off our resources didn’t want anything upsetting the coal applecart. It’s too late for us to be the technology and industrial leaders in this sector, let’s not fail to embrace it as consumers just so we can continue to line the same pockets.
Plus so much of this is ideological. I honestly have no fixed preference when it comes to which technology we use going forward. If a sound case could be made for nuclear energy being the absolute best way to go forward I would give it my full backing, but it’s just not there. And I really don’t want my power to be 8x more expensive at wholesale level (who knows how much on my power bill) just so team nuclear gets to have the win.
We don’t need to generate 100% of our power via nuclear though.
The best time to start building nuclear was decades ago. The next best time is now.
Cool, you footing the bill? Because the upfront costs of building out enough nuclear to replace just the current coal plants is going to lead to skyrocketing energy costs. But if you can front the billions it would cost nobody is going to stop you. However what is your plan for the next 15+ years it would take to build the fleet of nuclear powerplants? Since you have decided renewables are evil is the plan to ban them from being deployed while we build out nuclear, keep burning coal and gas during that time? Renewables keep getting cheaper to deploy, are you going to institute a world wide ban on further R&D until Australia finishes its nuclear rollout so we don’t have the equation slipping further into imbalance.
Also our power grids are actively degrading under neglect thanks to deregulation and asset sales, you going to renationalise all that so we can rationalise & remediate transmission costs or are we labouring under the misguided hope that we won’t have bad actors trying to profiteer off the lines and poles?
I get it, I wish we had got onboard with nuclear back when the economics would have made it a home run and social anxiety was the biggest blocker, we missed that boat and now the paradigm has shifted.
I fully believe nuclear should have a role in our energy market, but instituting a regressive authoritarian society to make it a reality just doesn’t seem like a smart decision.