Pelican and T2,

English not your strong point.

There is more than a subtle difference between remarks aimed at a person's post and remarks aimed at the person.

For example "A typical specious NIMBY argument"
Dictionary definition:- a specious argument.
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious:

Is not an definition applicable to a person. The same goes for "The proposal - not worthy of anyone with an IQ greater than that of a squirrel." Perhaps I should have used simple language such as the "the proposal is stupid." The term liar applies only to those that post stuff as fact that they are clearly capable of realizing as false.

Pelican, I can see that you would rather there were no action on climate change than use nuclear, and your alternative of coal to back up renewable generation considering that coal generation needs >24hrs to start up is clearly flawed.

The simple reality is:
1 - Renewables are costly and don't yet provide a realistic alternative to base load. Until this changes, addressing climate change will be expensive and largely futile without nuclear.
2 - Nuclear is still the safest generation technology in the world, and the perception of danger is equivalent to the fear of flying.

SM,

Your statement regarding nuclear energy -
that the perception of danger is the
equivalent to the fear of flying is accurate up
to a point. Nuclear energy is still in relatively
early stages of development comparable to flying
at the turn of the twentieth century - when planes
were rather primitive compared to today's developing
technology. Nuclear waste is still a problem. It will
take decades of development of nuclear energy to reach
the levels that we see in science fiction today.

Some countries, in Europe have little choice but to
utilise nuclear power not having the natural advantages
that Australia has. And also their current political,
and economic situations gives them little choice.
As surveys have shown in Europe and elsewhere however, -
the choice of nuclear power is not very popular amongst
people, despite the numerous power stations currently in
use.

This subject of nuclear versus renewable energy sources,
is one that will continue to remain controversial - as
long as the potential for disasters continues to exist.
And as in any democratic and adult discussion - opinions
that differ from our own should be respected - even though
we may not agree with them.

Deat Pelly and Thinker 2,

Thank You for your comments - I value your inputs in
this discussion.

Where in the dictionary do you find Nimby SM.

So once again whilst attempting to make yourself look clever, you fail to address the question. Its not unlike the Liberal National Party's in opposition.

Specious arguments are their specialty and it is very entertaining to listen them go down time and time again on the floor of Parliament.

People like Barnaby Joyce whose whole argument is a fiction backed up by lies, padded by more lies and concluded and summarised with false claims of inevitability. They carry on like little boys and girls whom have had their lollies taken away. Their squirming is audible on radio and their fooling no one.

Frankly either are you SM.

NIMBY (note the CAPITAL letters) is an acronym for

Not In My Back Yard.

There is no such think as a specious NIMBY and I never referred to one.

Comprehension of the written word is important for clarity of any complex topic.

Thank you for clearing that up SM. That is all I was hoping for.

cheers T2