Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "The 'drive towards renewables' will cost Australian families" video.

The French nuclear industry and hence its government is already in hock to the tune of 40 billion Euros and looks to crack 65 billion in the future, and McDonald is worried about $20 billion Aussie dollars to upgrade our infrastructure.
1
@ironsword7 Nope I'm talking about billions of dollars and McDonald's flawed argument for affordable nuclear energy and infrastructure costs associated with renewable energy transmission. Any conventional large scale nuclear plant is going to require the same infrastructure transmission as nobody no matter how safe it is, is going to want a nuclear power plant built anywhere near them, the politics alone is mind-numbing. So yes they are conflated intentionally. SMRs a different matter, but that technology in viable capacity is still years off.
1
@fugawiaus I admire your optimism. I agree nuclear is safe and clean and reliable, but tell a bunch of people it going to be built in their backyard and you are just ignoring the politics. Nuclear is also very expensive. It may have place in the energy mix its just there are cheaper less risky options.
1
@fugawiaus on a side note your opinion of the aesthetics of a coal plant/coal mine as opposed to a solar farm is completely subjective.
1
@fugawiaus As I said before merely subjective opinion, also recent studies show you can in certain circumstances farm underneath and beside the solar panels, and studies prove beyond all reasonable doubt fossil fuel industry kills significantly more birdlife than blade strikes on wind turbines, you assertion is they are bird blenders is a strawman argument and nonsensical. You forgot to mention the wonderfully scenic views provided by all those coal mines always a sheer joy to behold.
1
@fugawiaus Nice ad hominem, making most of what you said nonsensical, but I will reply anyway. Firstly just have a check and see what is powering the Bedfordshire HQ of the Royal Society for the Protection of birds. Hint it is a wind turbine. Read these three studies which prove scientifically what you said is complete rubbish. A Synthesis of Human - related Avian Mortality in Canada. 2013 Weak relationship between risk assessment studies and recorded mortality in wind farms. 2011 Contextualising avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil fuel, and nuclear electricity. 2009. This last study concluded wind farms and nuclear power stations kill 1 bird per every 2118 birds fossil fuel plants kill.
1
@fugawiaus Another strawman fallacious argument. I never suggested resources are not needed to be consumed to build infrastructure, it is the manner in how you achieve it that has become more important. ie the end does not justify the means.
1
@fugawiaus I have no idea what film or photos you are talking about. I just provided 3 scientific studies that explain how coal, nuclear and wind plants do that. You have provided another logical fallacy. In arguing you don’t know how a coal plant kills birds you have committed an argument from ignorance thus rendering your comment illogical. And I think we should leave it at that.
1
@fugawiaus Repeating a fallacious argument doesn't make it any less illogical. 1. CO2 emissions (mining and construction) 2. Low level radiation 3. Radioactive waste 4. Cooling water system. Some of these factors are obviously not relevant to coal or wind and wind turbines has the added issue of blade strikes. I can't help it if your imagination is unable to comprehend to multiple issues involved. Once again this is not my opinion these are scientific studies that prove it. Just because you can see how a turbine blade can strike a bird in flight and thanks makes sense to but you are unable to understand how CO2 emissions kill birdlife is an anecdotal fallacy and again is further evidence of your argument being illogical. Finally we can leave it at that.
1