"the biggest scam of all times is the coalition believing in nukes"

Currently there are 438 operating nuclear reactors, 70 under construction, 116 planned and 320 proposed. All operating reactors produce dispatchable power. In contrast, how many dispatchable wind and solar generation systems are in existence? Zero, as they all require 100% backup from gas, coal, hydro or nuclear.

That might be why north of ten billion in taxpayer dollars are going yearly to the scammers, yet power bills are over $1000 a year higher than cult leader Albo predicted.

And your Sun Cable fantasy would cost around $100 billion and makes even less sense than building a 3 GW power station on the Gold Coast then sending the power to Perth via HVDC transmission lines. Pure idiocy. Singapore is moving fast toward developing nuclear power: They want energy security and cheap, reliable power, not an economy destroying fantasy.

I'm sure the Koalas can't wait to have all their gum trees bulldozed and replaced with solar farms and wind turbines.

Fester,

It's remarkable how many talking points you've recycled there, and still without questioning the assumptions behind and of them.

//All operating reactors produce dispatchable power. In contrast ... wind and solar ... Zero...//

Sounds compelling and damning, but it's a misunderstanding of how modern grids actually work.

Nuclear is dispatchable in the baseload sense, but it's not flexible. It ramps slowly and can't respond to peak demand like batteries or fast-start gas can. Solar and wind don't need "100% backup".

//Yet power bills are over $1000 a year higher than cult leader Albo predicted.//

Current prices are largely due to gas prices and network costs. But wholesale prices - which the $275 saving was based on - are falling fast. The lag in retail prices is normal, not some conspiracy. It's how market pass-through works.

//Your Sun Cable fantasy would cost around $100 billion…//

The project stalled not because it was "fantasy," but because of a boardroom split between Forrest and Cannon-Brookes. Sun Cable was never about beaming power from Darwin to Perth - it was a Darwin-Singapore link using ultra-cheap NT solar.

And HVDC? We already use it - Basslink, QNI, EnergyConnect - it's not some wild idea. It's how every modern grid bridges distance and smooths volatility.

//Singapore is moving fast toward developing nuclear power…//

Yes, if by "fast" you mean "cautiously," and by "moving toward" you mean "dabbling in." They're forced to because they've got no space for renewables.

So, you're really scraping the barrel if Singapore is your benchmark for a national energy plan. Nuclear might be part of the mix one day, but it's not the silver bullet you're pretending it is. Just ask the UK.

//I'm sure the Koalas can't wait to have all their gum trees bulldozed...//

Koalas face bigger threats from land clearing for agriculture, car strikes, and disease - making it obvious that you don't actually care about them at all beyond the role their cuddliness can play in your culture war.

Solar farms often coexist with grazing, and wind farms occupy a tiny fraction of their footprint.

JD asserts..."Now you claim you never said koalas are increasing, never blamed scientists, and never implied anything broader than "just talking about koalas." That's convenient, but not honest."

Not honest? Oh well, the logical thing would then be to show where I indeed said koala numbers are increasing, indeed blamed scientists for the scam, indeed made broader claims. But JD doesn't do any of that. Not a jot.

Just the accusation and then scurrying away to make further false accusations.

Given that JD seems to think that having more koalas than we thought, is a bad thing, he'll be distressed to learn:

* a new population of the critter have been found around the Snowy Mountains.... http://aboutregional.com.au/koala-cluster-discovered-in-snowy-mountains-20-years-after-bushfire/490785/

* "A survey shows that Koala populations are bouncing back in areas between Morton and Bungonia"

* koalas on French Island (where they are an introduced pest) are doing so well that they are destroying the island's trees. And now there's talk of a cull!! Culling an endangered species?? The usual suspects won't get the irony there.

mhaze,

The irony here is that you're demanding quotes for claims you did make - just now recast with a fresh coat of plausible deniability.

You absolutely claimed the population was underestimated because "the critter was never in danger," that the extinction narrative was a "scam," and that it was "all gone" for the fundraising efforts of activists.

You asked whether CSIRO would have "the balls" to resist pressure - and suggested they'd back down just like they supposedly did "with the climate debate." That's more than enough to imply scientific capture or complicity, even if you avoided saying it outright.

You're walking a careful line - smearing scientists by implication, then retreating to "I never technically said that" when pressed. It's a common rhetorical game, but it doesn't land here.

As for your "good news" points? No one disputes that koalas remain locally abundant in some areas. That's been acknowledged repeatedly in the very research you keep ignoring. French Island koalas are introduced, unmanaged, and breeding without predators - which is why they're overpopulated.

That doesn't contradict regional endangerment elsewhere. It highlights the complexity you keep flattening into talking points.

Your Snowy Mountains link refers to a small population cluster detected via acoustic recorders - the very kind of improved method CSIRO says is responsible for the higher national estimate. If anything, it reinforces the point: better tech and survey coverage reveal more, but that doesn't erase existing threats.

What you consistently refuse to address is the CSIRO's own caution: that these population estimates are not trend data, and that localised declines, fragmentation, and habitat degradation remain real threats - especially in QLD, NSW, and ACT.

You're not celebrating good news. You're exploiting it to dismiss conservation science and paint years of concern as a hoax, while pretending to be misquoted when the implications are called out.

If you're confident in your position, own it. But don't build the bonfire and then act offended when someone points out that you're holding a match.

Try again.

Personally I think we should build massive oversupply, and when producing more than needed run bitcoin miners with the excess power.

This is getting boring. I get that you're trying to find a way out of the corner you've painted yourself into, but I don't feel the need to hang around while you do it.

But just to show how much you distort....

"You absolutely claimed the population was underestimated because "the critter was never in danger,"

Yes I did. But that's not the same, not even close, to saying the population is growing. I never said that but you erroneously claimed I had and never retracted. If I count the coins in my wallet and find I've got 80c but then later find a 5c coin hiding in the creases, it doesn't mean the money is increasing or that I think its growing. That'd be a dumb conclusion which it takes a special type of mind to assert