[roenxi]

> In a free market setting, nuclear is not going to be cheap.

Costs haven't stopped Germany trying to jump ship to solar, and that hasn't turned out half as well as France from an economic or environmental perspective. Australia is one close election away from the Greens pushing something similar on to us.

Australia is composed of unusually large, flat, desolate geotechnically stable areas. We produce large amounts of raw materials, including steel, and have some of the most extensive uranium deposits currently known about. We have a highly educated population.

The next time we have one of those big once-in-a-generation crashes and the government is looking for a great big expensive infrastructure project to soak up some excess capacity, it would be absolutely fantastic if a nuclear plant was at least on the cards.

Currently, it is banned. It is banned for no good reason. And banning something because the peanut gallery thinks it might be expensive is not a good move. And, and this is my central point in this thread, none of this is because the far right has an irrational love of coal.

[intended]

What does nuclear power have to do with the coral reefs?

As far is know, it was ocean acidification which is killing corals, and then run off/pollution?

[roenxi]

Not a huge amount; but I got riled up reading "the far-rights are ... maintaining Australia's CO2 emission levels". I sometimes get called far right in political discussion, and as far as I'm concerned Australia has a perfectly good option to lower CO2 emissions that is being blocked by the far left. I want to see more nuclear power stations, they look like a good idea to me.

There is a big coal mine in the works (Adani) and any outflows from that mine have some potential to add further stress to the reef ecosystem, so coal v. nuclear might be tangentially related there.