The Libs seem to have a bottomless bucket of money to support their rollout of nuclear. Why is it that when Labor goes anywhere near stuff like this they are accused of spending like drunken sailors, but for Dutton it is somehow sound economic management as far as our media - and a good swathe of voters, it seems - are concerned?
There's an interesting company in the US called Quaise Energy which is trying to develop the technology to drill incredibly deep holes for geothermal energy using masers (like a laser, but with microwaves instead of light). It's reasonable that someone might see the word "geothermal" and roll their eyes, but I think the technology is relevant because a) it aims to build geothermal power generation on existing fossil fuel power station sites, more or less regardless of geology, and b) it's unlikely to be competitive with wind and solar but may be able to compete with nuclear.
I'd like to see Dutton presented with examples such as this and asked to explain why he has chosen nuclear over other options.
"Solar panels, wind turbines and energy storage must be rolled out as rapidly as possible – and we must not allow Dutton’s policy detour to distract from the task."
Why would it if both pass cost benefit analyses using the price of electricity resulting from tax on net emissions in the benefit stream of these projects? The alternative to nuclear or solar ought to be fossil fuel generated power, especially coal, not each other, right?
No matter how many facts are provided, a la the Voice, voters who don’t want change - or just want the autocratic, anti-science, anti “woke”, “I want” of Dutton’s spiel - simply go with nuclear.
Otherwise how to explain the polls which show support for this economic and environmental catastrophe?
How to fight back in this newly-created fact-free zone?
On Insiders Speers mauled O'Brien, demonstrating the dearth of analysis by the coalition. Dutton's announcement was a vote catching exercise.
Gorton wanted the bomb.
I just noticed that 'nuclear' is an anagram of 'unclear'.
The Libs seem to have a bottomless bucket of money to support their rollout of nuclear. Why is it that when Labor goes anywhere near stuff like this they are accused of spending like drunken sailors, but for Dutton it is somehow sound economic management as far as our media - and a good swathe of voters, it seems - are concerned?
There's an interesting company in the US called Quaise Energy which is trying to develop the technology to drill incredibly deep holes for geothermal energy using masers (like a laser, but with microwaves instead of light). It's reasonable that someone might see the word "geothermal" and roll their eyes, but I think the technology is relevant because a) it aims to build geothermal power generation on existing fossil fuel power station sites, more or less regardless of geology, and b) it's unlikely to be competitive with wind and solar but may be able to compete with nuclear.
I'd like to see Dutton presented with examples such as this and asked to explain why he has chosen nuclear over other options.
"Solar panels, wind turbines and energy storage must be rolled out as rapidly as possible – and we must not allow Dutton’s policy detour to distract from the task."
Why would it if both pass cost benefit analyses using the price of electricity resulting from tax on net emissions in the benefit stream of these projects? The alternative to nuclear or solar ought to be fossil fuel generated power, especially coal, not each other, right?
No matter how many facts are provided, a la the Voice, voters who don’t want change - or just want the autocratic, anti-science, anti “woke”, “I want” of Dutton’s spiel - simply go with nuclear.
Otherwise how to explain the polls which show support for this economic and environmental catastrophe?
How to fight back in this newly-created fact-free zone?