The renewable push was just a precursor to the next step - nuclear. Renewables can't do the job and coal is on the nose - it's to smokey. Nuclear is safe, no smoke and clean - not sure if former inhabitants who died already or others affected by radiation from Chernobyl disaster (or Fukushima) agree.
Then of course if you think energy is expensive now, wait till the govt goes ahead with nuclear - funded by? There's been mention re putting at least one nuclear plant in the Hunter region - if I was living there, I'd move - not in my backyard syndrome - I'd stay if they built a new coal fired HELE plant - common sense but politicians here lack any such. Guess it's off topic but in my view nuclear is the worst option and expensive - how safe is Chernobyl?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/when-will-chernobyl-be-safe-what-we-know-about-the-world-s-largest-nuclear-exclusion-zone/ar-AA1z4RPrExcerpt:
In an article exploring the topic of when the zone will be safe, Newsweek cites a 2016 report suggesting that it will take 20,000 years. However, they note that experts are now estimating the timeline as closer to 3,000 years. Even more experts say it may "only" be centuries. Good to know, at best will have to wait only for a few centuries even as experts have absolutely no clue - so, earliest 'safe' visit to Chernobyl should be around the year 2500 - just have to ensure no smoke inhalations of any kind till then to kill.
No such 'waiting to visit' safety issues for any coal fired power systems, working or otherwise, anywhere in the world. A bit of smoke or a tad of radiation sickness and exclusion zones?
Send the politicians to Chernobyl for a month's holiday now - they may find a deterrent to make stupid and costly decisions again.
Sorry, off topic but find it fascinating as we await some imminent good or bad Melbana news - bear in mind Cuba has also energy supply issues - a few coal fired HELE plants could be put to good use. AIMO
