Reply to thread

You keep posting unreliable links and often not even reading the links before you post (as they say the opposite of what your walk away position is).

• your link on the cost of nuclear was an article debunking the cost basis used by the CSIRO. Why reference costings from an article that highlighted the gross incompetence and inexperience of the agency?
• your link on 20GW of batteries in california was the equivalent of 20GW of nuclear was from a dodgy social media guy. Only to highlight your wonderful social media numpty was confusing storage with production of energy, attested to by california's batteries not even lasting a few hours through the night.
• your now crazy idea about warranties can be compared to 20 year warranties on solar.....................news flash: warranties on solar do not cover domestic use thus no warranties. Please present the warranty on a MG battery please and let's discuss the terms and conditions.

I'm pro technology and pro moving away from fossil fuels. What I highlight is the transition is not a straight line and the hurdles are larger than one thinks and the cost is massive (more than dollars).

ie batteries are 94% renewable............really? where is this done & what % of a battery is PFAS. what % is child labour. Sure we will get better in time with energy storage and this may mean better batteries or even more likely better storage solutions and better power generation solutions. 

Having a discussion on the topic of renewables is an interesting one. but it would be helpful if you provided sensible links and used critical thinking to assess marketing vs reality.

A simple question to ask one self is why commercial batteries exist if amortising an entire car as well as a battery delivered a better outcome?