Look there are too many moving parts to have a definitive...

  1. 11,567 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 469
    Look there are too many moving parts to have a definitive agreement on a chat site.

    Our illustrious leaders go on paid junkets & cant agree. There is no chace of us meeting an accord in two or three paragraphs on a chat site (at least you kept the debate relatively unbiased.)
    (FWIW - I can post the links if you want, but to what avail - this is a chat site & based on opinions formed - I'm not getting marked on a paper lodged for a uni assignment or publishing this. So like everything it is an opinion formed)

    I'm saying the vitriol being pushed in the public space is not absolute & the high ground claim by the EV & renewables brigade are agruably not the best path forward (in Aust case).

    Yet you you get bitch slapped for having a different point of view than the holier than thou green movement.

    Nuclear HAS to be in the mix if we want a cheaper base load power deliver in this country & to take up the benefits that the EV revolution will bring. ( I am heavily invested in Cobalt/ lithium, Vanadium & Uranium). NO oilers

    EV Buses & Truck in China are great & in Metro Aust will have a significant benefit, but with the fleet being charged at night via a coal fired power station, turns the green into a muddy grey that is unless you drive the trucks & buses at night & have the plugged in& charging during the day time. You certainly wont have a battery big enough to accomodate the demand at night.

    (FWIW - have seen other article countering the wind turbine claim) - Remember your previous point about burning wood & how did that turn out - well the same applies to wind - Years ago all ships sailed the seas, Wind a very poor per unit energy provider, that why all the sea transport now is bunker fuel/ diesel is simply more energy delivered per unit.......- How did that turn out
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.