Just to comprehensively defeat your nonsense rhetoric"...He...

Just to comprehensively defeat your nonsense rhetoric

"...He hasn't got an agreement with any power company or any state government..."

From the announcement of his policy he has indicated the sites would be federally owned, as is the same in Canada, US and the UK. Your comment is just rhetoric

"...He hasn't even discussed the subject with any of those organizations. Therefore he doesn't know how much he needs to build ..."

He's not in government. He's forming a policy for Australian's to vote for. He clearly stated that the election will be a referendum on energy policy. Again your comment is just rhetoric

"...He doesn't know how much electricity Australia will require in the future ..."

By making this comment you're openly admitting that the Australian government doesnt know, because both the government and opposition would be getting their forecast from government departments in particular, treasury and energy.

"...We are not talking about other countries . We are talking about Australia..."

Classic. So when other countries have provided substantive reports for c2n you refuse to allow them into discussion, but you'll cite them in your argument for renewables. You're making this an incredibly easy argument to destroy

"...He doesn't want to accept the CSlRO's detailed findings so he must have a much better source of detailed info and yet he can't tell us..."

The GenCost report is flawed, these flaws have been highlighted to you, you're unable to rebut those flaws.

"...Remember how a couple of years ago he was against large nuclear ? Now he's backlipped ..."

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

"...Remember how he was going to present the numbers before the budget ? Another backflip...."

Why would he release it with still 12 months until the election. No opposition would

"...The Dud has got nothing and neither have you ..."

Turns out you're the only one with nothing, because destroying that argument was very very light work