The Climate, Environment and Energy Thread

[LP]

I’m going with the CSIRO on nuclear power; unbiased, objective and evidence-based analysis.

I don't have a problem with that, as long as you call out when the CSIRO report is misrepresented by either side of the debate.

But do not assume the conclusions of the CSIRO report are devoid of politics, they are funded by the government and the CSIRO reports tend to make conclusions based on the government of the day!

A lot of other stuff influences the outcomes of various reports, like where the superfunds of the various people or industries involved choose to invest.

Secondly, it's very wrong to assume we will all get the same deal, the growing disquiet about the poor performance of energy providers in regional areas should be a warning for all of us, it's the regional areas that are the canary, when stuff gets tough, the suburbs will feel the bite as well.

It's completely disingenuous when critics fail to call out the bogus details on both sides of the debate, they need to do better and if they do I'll have nothing to post about. But at the moment I see each segment attacking competing low carbon alternatives, they are forcing a unilateral approach that is doomed to fail.

PS; The moment engineers make nuclear fusion reliable, CSIRO will be all in over it like a rash, despite it generating as much waste a nuclear fission!

The real smart mix is SolarPV with centralised storage for peak demand, with supplementary energy from wind and hydro, relying on nuclear for 24/7 base load and zero carbon hydrogen production for transport. That's zero carbon emission within 20 years, but it's not going to be a windfall for any one technology investor including our superfunds.

I suspect we'll still be debating the politics in 20 years, at which time 3° C has left the building!