It’s not happening as much at the moment. That tends to happen as people buy houses, have family and feel comfortable. All of that is happening less for the younger generations than those that came before them so they aren’t going as conservative as they age

Except worse because they mix inventory so it’s easier for sellers to get away with scams

Because we could use the money spent on nuclear to build more renewables and supporting infra (storage and transmission) than if we also built nuclear. The renewables will snap be finished and replacing the fossil fuels a lot sooner than the 10-15 years for a nuclear reactor.

If you look up studies into it you need a lot less storage than you’d expect to run a fully renewable grid, as the scale of the grid stabilises it to weather fluctuations. Winter also is a problem that can be overcome. That gencost report is a decent starting point, there are plenty of other studies into it though. The low cost of storage is also especially true if you’re looking at the first 99% of the grid.

Maybe those studies are wrong and nuclear would be economic for that last 1%. However, if we can get to 99% years earlier by just building renewables then discover that it’s harder than expected to get to 100 (somewhat unlikely, especially as more storage tech is developed), we can build nuclear then. The net carbon from getting off the majority of fossil fuels years earlier will probably make it the better decision anyway.

Also just noting that my views are based on what I’ve read about Australia so you should also find peoperly researched cost analysis for your country. Also for renewables to work well in smaller countries they’ll need to develop more interconnects their neighbours etc.

Hydrogen works well with a renewable grids because you can take advantage of the times there is excess energy production so that power doesn’t just go to waste.

We do need to be careful because hydrogen is often sold as a pipe dream by gas companies to convince us to use gas (e.g. “this new gas turbine power plant can be converted to hydrogen”, even though that’d be a workload less efficient than fuel cells).

As for its use in transport, it looks like battery electric vehicles have won that battle for personal vehicles. Both have their advantages but in practice there are few enough fuel stations for hydrogen and enough chargers that that’s not going to flip.

However, batteries are entirely unsuitable to long distance, high load transport like trucks. Ideally they’d be replaced by rail, but that’s not happening anytime soon in many places so hydrogen likely will be the solution there.

The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are

And that opens up opportunities for energy intensive industries like aluminium or hydrogen production to run whilst there’s an excess of energy

No I was referring to autopilot, just look at the name of it. It’s I know it’s not capable of self driving (and neither is the even more absurd name of “full self driving”) but to your average person it intentionally sounds as if the car is driving itself instead of it being a driving assist.

That’d be the fsd stats, not autopilot

The way musk marketed it was as a “self driving” feature, not a driving assist. Yes with all current smart assists you need to be carefully watching what it’s doing, but that’s not what it was made out to be. Because of that I’d still say tesla is responsible.

At minimum we should be banning all poisons with a half life of more than a couple of days. Ideally we wouldn’t use any but that’s probably a lot harder to convince people of, and it shouldn’t be too hard to convince them to use the less damaging versions

It’s just a long-standing way in which the AEC interprets the. It’s nothing special to this referendum

Probably because there have been a lot more make chess players in general historically. It’s still a long way from an even split today and was probably even more imbalanced.

But the same applies for the other workarounds mentioned doesn’t it?

Capitalism with strong free market provisions (very few meters and acquisitions and actively breaking up large companies) + wealth taxes etc. is a very good system. People are greedy, and any system of governance needs to use that to its benefit.

Communism is decent in theory but results in stupid amounts of corruption in practice as you need some people with disproportionate power to administer the system.

Capitalism does tend towards concentration of wealth, and fails when markets become too concentrated (e.g. The gas market or supermarket duopoly in Australia). However, wealth taxes and properly powerful competition bodies can prevent that.

That’s pretty much all native species. The list of unprotected species is small and even then you aren’t allowed to hunt most of them. Ibis aren’t really a problem anywhere so there’s no reason that you’re allowed to kill them.

There has been a bit shared on that. From memory it would be a body made up of a few aboriginal people from different areas, that would exist to consult with parliament on issues that concerned aboriginal people.

Haven’t fully read it and I want familiar with the old ones, but it’s sensible that infotainment and mounted phones have the same rules

That could well be a poor translation of shady

That almost exists with things like helpex already. I’m not sure if there’s some variant for paid work. My parents have a farm and have had a bunch of backpackers stay. Some of them definitely did have some stories about being cheated etc.

However, it’s a bit different to what op is looking for as it’s just a bit of work for food and accommodation, as opposed to full days of work for pay.

On the whole I think the majority do the right thing, but there are definitely enough that are dodgy to create a bad reputation

For transmission (at least in NSW) there’s a fair bit of bad blood because transgrid has a history of building unnecessary powerlines. They get paid on their asset base and were building a lot of powerlines that had no use in any reasonable projections, only in bullshit projections from transgrid.

That’s now made it very hard for these projects to be done as there’s a history of the bad projects that’s pretty recent.

I’m not saying that these aren’t necessary now, but it’s no surprise people are opposing them with the history transgrid has.

For example they dumped a proposed Stroud to landsdowne powerline around 2012 after it was shown to be just the trying to increase their regulated asset base