It seems that Peter Dutton, in promoting an ill-thought-out nuclear energy plan, has succeeded in his true objective, namely undermining the drive towards renewable energy . With the lack of any analysis of the life-cycle impact of decommissioning an end-of-life nuclear plant, how to safely store high-level nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years or how to prevent diversion to nuclear weaponry, it is clear that the Dutton plan has a half-life until the next election.
”, June 21). There has been much scoffing and hysteria so far, but this energy source, as proven throughout the world, will deliver value for decades to come, ensuring a future of low carbon prosperity long after the naysayers are gone.”, June 21), and it’s sad that that may represent upwards of half the US population. But it’s another thing that those who do understand economics still support him. Business heads are quite happy to extend the tax cuts and possibly have some more.
Gerringong’s Bea Hodgson said that intelligent voters believe the scientists from the CSIRO, “who state that nuclear is more expensive than renewable energy and would take many years to build for the climate change that is happening now”. There was a great response to Deborah Snow’s article in which she pondered the over-representation of 60-something men in emergency departments (“