''“[But] if it is commercially viable, is not going to be subsidised. It’s as simple as that. That is how the commercial world works,” Taylor says.''
someone might want to ask Angus how that commercial world stuff is working out for providing welfare housing, university education, research in Oz, fossil fuel subsidies, etc etc
my god he is a stuffed goof.
would the same argument of his not work for gifting the commercial world with cash in a crisis - where they could have had insurance?
would the same argument of his not work out for farming subsidies?
Cost wise ------- regardless of if anyone likes it or hates it ---------- solar and wind win the cost race by country miles ------------ solar and wind first, daylight second
It's really incredible how the mob who consider themselves (incorrectly) as the government best money managers --------- are trying on the rubbish for running nuclear - by miles the MOST expensive form of power generation
it's like the Liberal Party are in full self destruct mode - if they are feeling this suicidal - why not just shut up shop, dissolve the party and go and do something else?
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Nuclear to cost $17b and twice as expensive as renewable energy
''“[But] if it is commercially viable, is not going to be...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 185 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)