Equitist wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:11pm:


it probably hasnt occured to you yet - so much doesnt - that in WA they could put a Nuke hundreds of Kms from a town. same is true of much of australia. your arguments remain hysterical and nonsensical. there isnt a measureed argument yet that you have brought forth.

Please delete wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:22pm:


seriously... if i build something without a permit it is ILLEGAL and a court would confirm it and has done so. so you are wrong there.

as for 'no commercial interest', that is a statement of your opinion knowing almost none of the facts.  NO power company is going to put up a proposal for a nuke power plant in an environment when there is zero chance of it being approved. there is already a lot of pro-nuke lobbying by industry already. and there wil be no application until the political environment is such that it is a possibility. Does that make any sense? they arent building a road or a bridge. this is a $10B project. no one spends tens of millions on a cost benefit analysis, business plant and preliminary designs on something that has zero chance of being approved. An application to build is a LONG way away still.

"if i build something without a permit it is ILLEGAL"

Well duhhhh.

Are you having a slow day?

"An application to build is a LONG way away still."

And so you want a debate in absence of ANY parameters.

The difference between this and your fury about the NBN is bizarre.

Please delete wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 5:37pm:


we want a debate that ESTABLISHES the parameters or is that too difficult for you to understand.  and there is no comparison between this and the NBN. I dont even know if i support nukes or not but I despise the way any debate on the topic is squashed just as Gillard did (again) today. Frankly I'd like to form my opinion after and open and honest public debate on the pros and cons of the issue.

"we want a debate"

Go for it. You're like children, "we want a debate, we want a debate, we want a debate".

"Frankly I'd like to form my opinion after and open and honest public debate on the pros and cons of the issue. "

Have the damned debate then! What on earth is stopping you? Labor? They have the power to stop you thinking, researching, debating?

"3000kms of coast? we also have rivers."

Name ONE PLACE in NSW or Victoria that meets those criteria.

Hundreds of miles from a town, with sufficient water (that isn't in a national park? Is that a factor).

"we want a debate, we want a debate, we want a debate".

Switkowski wasn't enough, under a sympathetic government? The debate happened then, and went absolutely nowhere.

And if you want to be so childish as to start name calling .... Why don't you hold your breath until you turn blue?

Please delete wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 6:24pm:


Well I guess 'uninformed and dogmatic' IS a position - just not one most people would adopt.

Please delete wrote on Dec 1^st, 2010 at 6:28pm:


quite the contrary. It probably just seems like it to you when you adopt the 'never, ever, anywhere in my lifetime' position. I'd like to know the economic and viability assessment points. Im not anti-nuke in principle (as you are) nor am I pro-nuke. Im interested in the details and whether or not it is right for australia. I actually run a company that deals with  renewable energy and nuclead IS a technology that forms part of the mix in a low-emission energy environment overseas. You cant just cover the country in wind farms and solar cells. its alittle more complex than that!