concede the second but point out that the electricification of…well, everything that currently isn’t, pretty much, is sure as sh*t going to change that.

Yes, but that will take time (EVs, for example, will take a good 20 years to displace ICE cars). And after that will it level off again ?

the third, it’s not the acreage it’s the social licence/delivery (also the extreme weather vulnerability). that will keep on being a ‘problem’ (worsening…the more extensive and distributive the networks the more efficiency losses, emission costs and vulnerability to outage).

So, again, if you’re going to talk about “social license” then maybe nuclear isn’t the best alternative.

Distributed power will be more resilient to outages as a whole by its nature.

Because that would contradict their myth that everything would be just great if those nasty Greens would just get out of the way and let Labor settle into being Coalition-Lite.

Yes, let’s move on from your tiresome pretence that nuclear power has any chance of being part of Australia’s mitigation of climate change/

Plibersek is almost as much a Minister Against The Environment as her Coalition predecessors.

the cynical opportunism Abbott saw

was 100% Rudd’s. He thought that he could cleverly cut the hated Greens out, and the result was total failure.

Rudd’s CPRS was ineffectual garbage, and was designed that way. The Greens wanted something that actually worked, and Rudd’s garbage, which they had been excluded from negotiating, wasn’t it.

all arguable pts – ‘cept imo their strategic targets and timelines – but my point really was to demonstrate what is technically/econometrically do-able, as a counter to the always worst case anti-nuke ‘evidence’ which curiously ignores their efforts altogether and just cherrypicks the worst recent western examples. funny dat.

Of course examples of western countries are used. What sense would it make to use examples from countries that have entirely different Governance, economic and social structures ?

all arguable pts – ‘cept imo their strategic targets and timelines – but my point really was to demonstrate what is technically/econometrically do-able, as a counter to the always worst case anti-nuke ‘evidence’ which curiously ignores their efforts altogether and just cherrypicks the worst recent western examples. funny dat.

re: politics/social license…well there’s a good chance that to keep our RE roll-out even vaguely on track some of the wind & solar farm & trsmn/distr planning and connection ‘State Diktats’ are going to get – necessarily (no plan B) – pretty bleeding draconian, mefinx…not to mention $$$-gougy..defacto State Command economy even?

but yeah sure let’s crack on. not much choice now p’raps