Critical limitations of the main sources of electricity generation

In addition, as battery storage is not an economic option, at least at this time, all-renewable electricity generators are simply not fit for purpose, being bereft of any dispatchable generation. Dispatchability is vital for 24/7 supply on demand. Changing electricity demand must be met almost instantaneously by change in utility output, that is, dispatchable generation is essential.

Society wants reliable, 24/7, most affordable and carbon-free electricity with minimum adverse environment effect. An all-renewable grid cannot provide for these requirements as well as being ruinously costly. (References 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Australia's all-renewable net zero policy is a disaster and is a significant contributor to our inflation. Our standard of living will suffer and it could easily affect our sovereignty.

If solar and wind really were cheaper, economics ensures that they would replace fossil fuels without the need for a grand push, including massive subsidies (often hidden), from politicians and the gravy train of the 'renewables' industry. This claim is incessantly repeated because it is convenient to those who profit from it, politically or financially or from those who just do not understand where the costs really come from. Cheap solar and wind to supply electricity 24/7 has no substance in reality, it is just a feel-good fantasy.

A rapid global transition from fossil fuels is impossible. Emerging economies will continue to focus on becoming richer, mostly using fossil fuels, as they are cheaper and dispatchable. Australia cannot change this. Abatement of fossil fuel emissions requires a global response.

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear fission is a mature and proven technology and it is dispatchable. It can easily be placed on the present sites of coal-fired plants utilizing the same transmission system and provide jobs for those displaced as coal-fired power is turned off. It has considerable economic and social benefits. At first glance it looks like the immaculate solution, but it is not.

Solar and wind will produce a high-volume disposal problem at end-of-life. Queensland has already banned spent solar panels from landfill. Nuclear will produce lesser volume, but it is radioactive. A satisfactory solution to the permanent disposal of dangerous nuclear waste is the main hurdle to the wider spread adoption of this technology.

Radioactive waste is already here, and we have to deal with it.

Nuclear waste is typically classified as being low, intermediate or high level, depending on its radioactivity. While some countries vitrify low and intermediate-level waste, the method is mostly used to immobilize high-level liquid waste, which contains fission products and transuranic elements with very long half-lives that are generated in a reactor core. This type of waste requires active cooling and shielding because it is radioactive enough to significantly heat both itself and its surroundings.

Tens of thousands of metric tonnes of radioactive waste that accumulated from commercial power plants and years of national defence operations continue to age at sites around the globe. As the hazardous material and the containers it sits in await permanent disposal, the stockpile keeps growing. It is said that in some cases the aging containers have already begun leaking their toxic contents.

Vitrification involves the processing and transformation of the spent fuel into a glass. It has been used for high level waste immobilization for over 40 years in most countries that have a nuclear power program, including France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, UK, Japan, and the USA.

However, it does not apply to all types of nuclear waste and it cannot be assumed it is a permanent solution.