A big percentage of people have a pragmatic opinion, or at least an open mind, about the potential for the adoption of nuclear power in Australia.
To them, it might not be ants pants, they might have some qualms about the possibility of there being a nuclear accident, like the infamous Chernobyl disaster of 1986 in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan in 2011.
But to be realistic, such fears would be greatly overstated and disproportionate to the risk of such ever occurring in Australia, certainly to the extent of what happened at Chernobyl, which was a freakishly catastrophic event caused by gross human error, not the technology.
The Fukushima nuclear plant should have never been built where it was - right on the coast alongside the Pacific Ocean and smack back on a massive earthquake fault line.
Taking Chernobyl and Fukushima out of the equation, considering how many nuclear power plants there are in the world and that have been in operation for many decades, nuclear power has a excellent record for safety, and it's "clean energy".
Exactly what prime minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen should want. They want clean energy, they just don't want nuclear, and that is shaping up as being a major problem and threat for Australia's energy security.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has cited nothing more than plain common sense and inconvenient truths to call out the Albanese government's complete refusal to consider the feasibility of nuclear power adoption.
As in highlighting that if Australia goes fully renewable by 2035 with solar and wind power, with no coal, gas or nuclear energy as a back up, that the country will end up energy bankrupt.
Labor and Green supporters, a circus of left wing journalists and those who just detest Dutton, including a lot of armchair bandits on social media, have savaged him over his pro nuclear policy agenda, which he is taking to the next federal election, and it's hefty price tag.
Yes it's not cheap, the cost of Dutton's nuclear plan will be upwards towards $100 billion.
But what about the whopping $368 billion which Albanese and defence minister Richard Marles have pledged over the next 30 years to buy a fleet of second hand, clapped out ,antiquated nuclear powered submarines off the United States as part of the highly dubious AUKUS treaty?
It appears that "humongous transaction" is a "slight oversight" in the minds of all those who are busy trying to derail Dutton's well considered and practical nuclear ambitions on the basis of cost alone. Ask yourself - what do you think is the better investment for Australia?
No comments:
Post a Comment