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
yes, it seems very rushed.... despite them having 2 years to get...
-
- 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
I88
INFINI RESOURCES LIMITED
Charles Armstrong, MD & CEO
Charles Armstrong
MD & CEO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online