3 ms·
Both of those things can be correct. Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered because th
by adventured 5y ago
Both of those things can be correct.
Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered because the environmentalists won't support it.
Accordingly they can get positive credit for the first and negative for the second.
- XorNot 5y agoDon't kid yourself though - no major party in Australia supports nuclear. The Liberals will say they'll think about it, knowing there's a couple hundred idiots who'll actually believe them and give them a vote while they greenlight Indian-owned coal-miners finishing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Both major parties (Labor and Liberal) have huge donors from coal-mining concerns, as well as union support from coal-miners who - in a startling display of unification with the capital class - also oppose it because it's not coal-mining. The world will be building fusion reactors in 2050, or spacebeamed solar power or opening a portal to the Warp or something for limitless free energy, and Australian politicians will still be talking about how "we can't just give up on coal". Progress in this field is going to come from the private sector in-spite of the government who are already trying to kill solar power projects.
- rgmerk 5y agoTwo further points: NIMBYism would kill nuclear power in Australia stone dead, including NIMBYism in conservative-held rural seats. New-build coal, nuclear, and gas, is simply economically competitive with new-build renewables in Australia right now absent direct government subsidies - and if anyone is tempted to rabbit on about sun not shining and wind not blowing please go read AEMO's draft 2022 Integrated System Plan before replying.