Cheaper electricity, less emissions and ready by 2035 are some of the Coalition’s core promises on nuclear energy, but are they backed by evidence?

tl;dr - no

  • This is complete shit. The quote the csiro analysis that neglected the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design because it doesnt fit the narrative. The rest of the article is spent bashing the rest of their energy policy which seems pretry fair to me. This headline is completely inaccurate. Just because they rest of the coilititions policy is shit why bash the one good thing about it in ur headline like its the be all and end all. If i though the guardian had brains then i might say they are doing this maliciously but they aren’t bright enough for that.

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      55 months ago

      Any chance of some facts or references in that word spaghetti?

      • Facts all of it. References go look at said csiro report then go look at the style of the majority of nuclear reactors ever build in human history and explain to me why csiro neglected to include the most popular most built most experienced design style in human history. The rest of what I said is simply pointing out that the guardian is using a completely fair and justified lib bashing campaign to bash the single good thing the libs included.

        Its just me bing pissed at the current media and most peoples inability to recognise that some of the ideas by people u disagree with are good ideas. And some of the ideas of people u agree with are bad. Why are we picking teams then blindly supporting out team while blindly bashing the other team. Take the good ideas from both ridicule the bad from both and we will be in a far better place.

        • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          95 months ago

          It seems like if what you’re saying is true, you could easily just reference something that explains it.

          I still have no idea what this design is you’re talking about.