Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 12:16am:


Show us.  Link?

Belgarion wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 9:47am:


Actually, it was you who was wrong.

You said the link you posted showed that most Australians supported the implementation of nuclear power.

It did no such thing - it showed that most were willing to give consideration to nuclear power.

Consideration is not construction and/or implementation.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 12:16am:


Support for Nuclear is not the same as support for the Libs plan.

I support Nuclear as a clean technology.

It's not without its risks or cost issues, but in terms of emissions, it's a valid technology.

But we know you reject all the science around climate change, so you can't really lean on that as why you support Nuclear so aggressively.

You're simply toeing the party line.

Again, it's a mining policy, not an energy policy, and that's why you're compelled to support it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 8:43am:


I too would also like to see that.  I suspect, in the shadow of people accusing you of playing semantics, that this is exactly what's happening in this case, only from Baron.

Before we even get to the construction of the first plant, there is so much to overcome including regulatory and policy hurdles such as legislative barriers, and the policy shifts requiring a change of government.

Then there is the licensing and approval process, including regulatory approvals, safety and compliance.

Don't forget the physical infrastructure and technology requirements, including site preparation etc and of course, the high costs that will require significant upfront investment and long-term financial commitments and the only way for any of this to work is to cripple competing energy sources which won't be coal or gas, not by the Coalition.

It will have to be renewables. 

And since Australia has abundant renewable energy resources, such as solar and wind, which are becoming increasingly cost-competitive and quicker to deploy, it's going to need a solid misinformation campaign to sway public opinion, with the first step being the Coalition Nuclear plan.

And that's all before construction.

So when I say it's likely a semantics argument, with Baron being disingenuous as always, he'll likely be referring to a single aspect of the path to Nuclear, but the whole trail.

It won't be 5-6 years from the moment the Libs regain office, IF they are to even push ahead with this plan.

And that's a big if. 

The goal of this plan is to drive investment away from renewables and push further coal and gas as the means of production for our energy needs as long as possible without the Coalition have to come out and say they don't accept Climate Change as real and want to attack renewables to help protect the interests of the Minerals Council and other mining benefactors.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 24^th, 2024 at 10:37am:


That is why there is a difference between support for Nuclear as a technology as part of our energy mix, vs the Coalition plan which is an attempt to prevent further investment in renewables, push more coal and gas as are primary generation sources and then pretend their goal is Nuclear.

As I said,

SadKangaroo wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2024 at 10:33pm:

Mr Sad,
Quote:


I wanted to hear that for all that financial pain and radioactive risk
that we would get say 50% of our power or 70% like France from nuclear
but 3.7% is stuff all - it might as well be nothing.   

Quote:


What would Mr Potato Head know about selecting nuclear sites ?

I wouldn't trust him to select 7 sites to eat potato chips.