HOW FOREIGN INFLUENCE HAS SHAPED AUSTRALIA’S ENERGY POLICY

Posted on by

This post follows my earlier post “Australia Needs to Learn from Germany’s $500 billion Mistake” ( based on renewable energy). It is important our politicians see that video as well as this one, so do what you can to get the message out.

Zoe Booth speaks with Gerard Holland, CEO of the Page Research Centre and founding member of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, about the hidden forces shaping Australia’s energy transition. Holland argues that foreign money, green-lobby astroturfing, and political restrictions are distorting Australia’s energy strategy. The conversation covers new research revealing more than $108 million in foreign-funded efforts to influence energy policy, the economics of renewables, nuclear power, and the growing cost-of-living crisis. They explore why the renewable transition is struggling to deliver cheap and reliable power, how subsidies shift costs onto lower-income households, and why Australia’s policy direction risks worsening strategic and economic vulnerabilities. This episode asks: Who benefits from keeping Australia nuclear-free and energy-dependent? What if net zero isn’t achievable through renewables alone? And what does this mean for Australia’s economic and national security future?

As I believe Jesus is returning with the glorified Saints to rule the nations with a rod of iron, maybe as early as 2035, poor decisions on energy supply will be quickly put right. Nuclear Fission or even Nuclear Fusion will be possibly on the table at that time. God has given us many prophetic scriptures on Jesus coming Millennial Kingdom you can prepare to rule and reign with Jesus by going to http://www.millennialkingdom.net

“He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father” Revelation 2:26-27

WHY AUSTRALIA MUST GO NUCLEAR

Posted on by

If we want to have a cleaner environment, we will need to address a few fundamental issues: The source of electricity and the baseload power generation infrastructure must be upgraded. And that means we need to migrate to nuclear fission. If the goal is to stop using coal and natural gas, then this is the only logical way to power economies and cleanly “fuel” EVs. The power distribution grid needs to be completely upgraded. If we all had EVs today, the power grids would collapse. It couldn’t carry the load. And our aging power grids tend to lose between 7–15% of the electricity between the source of production and your EV. This is what is referred to as transmission and distribution losses (T&D losses). That means we have to burn extra amounts of fossil fuels for each unit of electricity delivered to an end user. The power generation of major developing economies like China and India must be addressed. These countries continue to increase their use of coal, especially China, despite developed countries around the world reducing the use of coal. The U.S. private sector continues to lead the world in terms of investment and technological innovation on both next-generation forms of nuclear fission (small modular reactors, or SMRs) and nuclear fusion technology. Sadly, nuclear fusion is not even close.

U.S. energy technologies are aggressively “doing something about it” rather than just talking about it over tea parties. Fortunately, the Trump administration is very pro-nuclear as a source of energy, which has not been the case in the U.S. for decades. We can also expect to see some major regulatory changes that will safely streamline the regulatory process for developing and commissioning nuclear fission reactors.

In summary, we need to follow America’s lead. Dutton has seen the light, and we should give him the reigns at the next election. What he proposes is the best and least expensive power generation option for Australia, particularly using the existing transmission lines by converting coal-fired plants to nuclear. Labour’s renewables with solar and wind are not a viable option, and from my standpoint, wind turbines are an eyesore.

WIND AND SOLAR IS NOT THE ANSWER: USA GOING TO NUCLEAR

Posted on by

USA is planning to convert closed coal-fired power stations to nuclear. Just as Peter Dutton suggests Australia should do with small modular nuclear reactors as well as new conventional nuclear reactors.

Nuscale Small Modular Nuclear reactor

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a report showing that hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions. This coal-to-nuclear transition could add a substantial amount of clean electricity to the grid, helping the U.S. reach its net-zero emissions goals by 2050. 

The study investigated the benefits and challenges of converting retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. After screening recently retired and active coal plant sites, the study team identified 157 retired coal plant sites and 237 operating coal plant sites as potential candidates for a coal-to-nuclear transition. Of these sites, the team found that 80% are good candidates to host advanced reactors smaller than the gigawatt scale.  

A coal-to-nuclear transition could significantly improve air quality in communities around the country. The case study found that greenhouse gas emissions in a region could fall by 86% when nuclear power plants replace large coal plants, which is equivalent to taking more than 500,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles off the roads.  

It could also increase employment and economic activity within those communities. When a large coal plant is replaced by a nuclear power plant of equivalent size, the study found that jobs in the region could increase by more than 650 permanent positions. Based on the case study in the report, long-term job impacts could lead to additional annual economic activity of $275 million, implying an increase of 92% in tax revenue for the local county when compared to the operating coal power. 

“This is an important opportunity to help communities around the country preserve jobs, increase tax revenue, and improve air quality,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff. “As we move to a clean energy future, we need to deliver place-based solutions and ensure an equitable energy transition that does not leave communities behind.” 

The reuse of coal infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactors could also reduce costs for developing new nuclear technology, saving from 15% to 35% in construction costs. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could save millions of dollars by reusing the coal plant’s electrical equipment (e.g., transmission lines, switchyards), cooling ponds or towers, and civil infrastructure such as roads and office buildings.  

Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted the study, sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy. 

Read the full report here.