james weidmann

I had a reply from @jackietrad, from @cleannrgcouncil in the @FinancialReview yesterday, presenting the case that renewables are definitely coming, and Eraring's extension is just a 'stop gap'. I have some thoughts. 1/ afr.com/policy/energy-…

Condoning targeted bullying of young activists. Good look... Keep it up @ShackelWill. Clearly hitting the right nerves.

Sandy Ridge - a successful radioactive material disposal facility which secured First Nation approval - is only 'toxic' for the kind of life-long activist who's traded on the plight of Traditional Owners his entire career.

@AusConservation @NukeDaveSweeney

Letter in Gladstone Today from @NukeDaveSweeney. #auspol #nuclear ☢️

News flash... Turnbull has cashed out of a couple of pumped hydro projects. Sold to AGL. Do they stack up economically? Is this the market at work? Or is this what carefully treading through the maze of subsidies delivers to smart players? 1/ reneweconomy.com.au/turnbull-sells…

Nuclear energy is as inevitable as gay marriage always was. Bigoted outdated folk just causing delays.

You can’t keep expecting more than 10-12% of the vote without changing yourselves.

I trust Adam views all those renewables only lobby groups with the same level of doubt and skepticism.

@ShackelWill This passes for environmental advocacy now @earthkath @CAN_Australia ? In a way I support it because it makes pro nuclear advocacy so much easier. Completely unhinged.

Wonder who’s funding the anti nuclear disinformation campaign? Here’s a quick sample: -ACF -Climate Council -Doctors for the Environment -Extinction Rebellion -Friends of the Earth -Getup -Greenpeace -Smart Energy Council -Solar Citizens -United Workers Union -Uniting Church Australia -WWF -Rewiring Australia Many of these groups claim to be experts on energy and nuclear. The evidence speaks otherwise. Full list: cana.net.au/ourmembers

Just a snapshot from their 'about' page to get a sense of things. Fighting colonisation, white supremacy and capitalism and patriarchy are part of it. "Taking our democracy back from big business." Kinda odd for an outfit trying to save Rio Tinto's aluminium holdings. 5/

Let them make fools of themselves #auspol

I’m old enough to remember the 2019 climate change election that the Coalition won.

Constructively, @AustralianLabor.

@David_Ritter @GreenpeaceAP You had all of 5 people turn up in weird cos play. Keep it up i think it’s working 👍🏻

Today @GreenpeaceAP activists crashed Peter Dutton’s campaign launch party, to send a clear message to voters: Don’t risk Dutton’s nuclear. We’re already almost halfway to powering Australia with clean, safe and affordable renewables—let’s keep it up. greenpeace.org.au/news/greenpeac…

@AusConservation No doubt the study exaggerates actual water requirements and ignores reuse. Water is a very solvable issue even for large nuclear plants. It’s like trying to argue England is too cloudy for solar.

Nuclear energy has a dirty little secret. Water. A new expert report has blown the lid off the Coalition’s nuclear plan, and it’s not pretty. Commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, the report found 90% of the Coalition’s proposed nuclear sites don’t have enough water to run safely. And ACF analysis released last month found that just one reactor guzzles 50 million litres of water a day -that’s a silo’s worth every 22 minutes. Enough to hydrate a million cows. Most of the Coalition's proposed sites are already water-stressed. In a dry, warming climate, it just doesn’t add up. Meanwhile, solar and wind are drought-proof, cheaper, faster to deploy, and create more jobs. Nuclear is the thirstiest, slowest, riskiest and most expensive energy source on the table, and we can’t afford to wait until 2045 for a ‘maybe’. Our future is renewable, not radioactive. Learn more: acf.to/3RGKAkp #SolarSaves #NuclearCosts #RenewablesNow #ClimateAction #AusPol #WaterSecurity #CleanEnergy

For the ABC, a nearly 8× nuclear power project cost increase would be more than enough justification to line up endless commentary demanding immediate abandonment.

@flashpixx8 @AusConservation Zero. Hope this helps. They have to say “whatever causes it” in the video because they can’t think of any credible ways this would happen in Australia.

@AusConservation Without diminishing the utter stupidity of Nuclear in Australia, what are the chances of an earthquake + tsunami at the intensity of the Fukishima incident happening in Australia? I do wonder if this is a sensationalist argument 🤷

“They’re not talking about safety are they?” Mr Dutton said today. Well, we are. If the Coalition’s nuclear reactors get built, the risk of a nuclear accident is always present. Watch this 2-minute video. #auspol youtube.com/watch?v=VIModF…

"U.S. states are leading a new wave of investment in advanced #nuclear energy, aiming to boost energy #security, support industrial #growth, and revitalize local economies." No other energy source tackles so many problems at once quite like nuclear 🤷 nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-wo…

Simon Holmes a Court’s Climate 200 are funding 35 candidates “committed to science-based approach to climate” None of these candidates will tell you why they ignore the proven science of nuclear energy. These points may give you a clue - Australian Tax payers are funding billions of renewable energy grants - Major Climate 200 donors and members of the Smart Energy Council (SHaC Director) are recipients of these grants - Simon acknowledges he trades in energy commodities - two top Teal donors, Catsaras and Keldoulis are energy traders - the coalitions plan for approx 70% renewables and 30% nuclear will severely derail the gravy train of tax payer funded grants. - Climate 200 paid over $1m to Smart Voting P/L to produce anti nuclear propaganda. This is how the political arm of the renewable energy industry operates. Only last week Monique Ryan was addressing Kooyong voters and perpetuating the lie that nuclear would cost $600m and only provide 15% of our energy. #NuclearEnergy #Renewables #TealTruth

💡IEA: Nuclear is cheaper than solar or wind + storage in the EU in 2040 In its latest report the @IEA shows that new nuclear in EU in 2040 is more cost-effective than solar or onshore wind paired with 8-hour batteries, when compared at the same discount rate (WACC) A 🧵 1/5