yes, it seems very rushed.... despite them having 2 years to get just this far.
obviously a disorganised used mob.
I'm not fully up to speed on nuclear siting requirements. but as far as I'm aware the 2 main criteria are geological stability and access to a large supply of water. which is why I'd bag out Liddell as an option and proposed Eraring as more suitable.
the inclusion of Liddell, which has a large dam as its water supply, is evidence that they haven't given this much thought.
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Nuclear plant sites
Nuclear plant sites, page-75
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 307 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
FHE
FRONTIER ENERGY LIMITED
Adam Kiley, CEO
Adam Kiley
CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online