Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Belgarion, you really want the near impossible from everybody don't you. Tell us what, how about you explain why these developing countries are willing to invest billions of dollars (which they really don't have) in nuclear energy when more developed countries aren't?  I look forward to your response.  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

Doesn't spud want to build one on s faultline that's had four earthquakes over 4 on Richter scale ? He also wants SMRs and currently only China who can't stand liberals and Russia have operational examples ... so we're told ...

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2024 at 7:09pm:


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/a-history-of-dr-ben-santer-and-his-ipcc-t...

[url=https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/25/can-we-trust-the-science/]https://iowacl...

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Seitz-A_Major_Deception_on_Global_...


https://journals.ametsoc.org/downloadpdf/view/journals/bams/78/1/1520-0477-78_1_...

It also appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

And hasn't been updated. Climate Attribution Studies excepted, aka computer modelling.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Wow. Summary for Policymakers. The bureaucrats who don't have any special attributes except be policy wonks. The 1.5C and the 2C before it were from economists or bureaucrats. 

"William Nordhaus, an economist at Yale was the first corporate shrill to suggest that 2C was both achievable and safe."

https://kevinhester.live/2016/06/05/the-myth-of-2c-being-safe-and-achievable/

The Paris Agreement parties set 2C but agreed to try for 1.5C. So the 1.5C is not written in stone. In fact nothing about Paris Agreement is written in stone.

"However, the understanding has led to prominent experts to argue the Paris accord is not a legally binding document after all.
The power of the Paris Agreement in fact relies on a fluid agreement about the consequences for violating an international agreement, one not precisely defined."

"Yet the treaty itself has few legal teeth. It does not impose penalties, such as fees or embargos, for parties that violate its terms, and there is no international court or governing body ready to enforce compliance. That has prompted some prominent experts to argue the Paris accord is not a legally binding document after all."

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/11/paris-climate-agreement-legally-binding/

So a so-called legally binding document has no teeth. It is feel good bs.

If climate change is bullshit as Lee claims....Why do we need to build expensive radioactive Nuclear reactors at all....We can keep using coal and gas which is safer and cheaper....Dutton is selling us a lie that we do not need because global warming is a load of crap hey Lee....No to Nuclear and more gas and coal will do the job....Why waste money on Nuclear when it is not needed and we have so much gas and coal???



https://theconversation.com/the-thinking-error-that-makes-people-susceptible-to-...

Leroy wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 8:23am:


Exactly....So why are we going with the expensive Nuclear option when we can just build more coal and gas generation....Dutton is selling Australia out by opting for the most expensive power supply based on a Global Warming lie....We should be following the Chinese example and stick with coal and gas....Australia is so small we add very little to the hoax of Global Warming so why does Dutton want to build Nuclear....What a waste of time and money....Fossil fuel is safe and reliable???

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 8:37am:


Nuclear is cheaper

Nuclear reactors can be up to 10,000mw, but 1,000 units would be more sensible for Australia.

Perth for instance has a peak load of around 3000mw so three reactors would be sufficient for Western Australia.

The largest coal plant in WA is 330mw. Wind turbines are less than 10 mw.

When it comes to stability and reliability you get what you pay for.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2024 at 8:37am:


You'd have a coronary - along with the Greens, Teals and Gretas - if anyone said so.

Nuclear was introduced decades before the AGW political scare took hold. It is not polluting the air, unlike brown coal, and the world has uranium reserves that would supply clean reliable energy much longer than coal and oil. That is why nuclear was introduced and that is why it remains a viable option.

But it is not as easily and flexibly portable as fossil fuels. You can't have it in your car or truck or rooftop but can have it in an aircraft carrier or submarine.

It is a good option to have in the energy mix, together with hydro. AUSTRALIA should have a lot more hydro power, alas the blue banded bee dreaming won't allow it. Or is it the fat arsed wombat dreaming - I forget.