Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,816
- Reactions
- 6,797
We can't do anything quickly.
We can't do anything quickly.It is possible 7-8 years if you have a site already approved, if you have the regulatory and oversight structures in place, if you have financing in place, if you have completed the engineering design and got sign off, if you have all the environmental approvals in place for waste management, if, if ...you get you idea.
None of this exists in Australia 20 years would be a good result.
It would take 20 years to get both sides of politics to agree on naming the staff canteen, let alone agree on nuclear, can't wait to see how this ends up it should be the funniest show ever.It is possible 7-8 years if you have a site already approved, if you have the regulatory and oversight structures in place, if you have financing in place, if you have completed the engineering design and got sign off, if you have all the environmental approvals in place for waste management, if, if ...you get you idea.
None of this exists in Australia 20 years would be a good result.
And probably cancelled half way through.It would take 20 years to get both sides of politics to agree on naming the staff canteen, let alone agree on nuclear, can't wait to see how this ends up it should be the funniest show ever.
If it eventually is required it will end up being just another rushed through, half ar$ed brain fart plan, that we are renowned for, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Absolutely.And probably cancelled half way through.
It takes 10 years to get approval for a wind farm, there is absolutely no hope for a nuke.It would take 20 years to get both sides of politics to agree on naming the staff canteen, let alone agree on nuclear, can't wait to see how this ends up it should be the funniest show ever.
If it eventually is required it will end up being just another rushed through, half ar$ed brain fart plan, that we are renowned for, the more things change the more they stay the same.
It would take 20 years to get both sides of politics to agree on naming the staff canteen,
You mean bureaucracy bs. They could fast track it. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have already investigated and planned all of this years ago. It simply gets "go slow" by ideological wanks.It is possible 7-8 years if you have a site already approved, if you have the regulatory and oversight structures in place, if you have financing in place, if you have completed the engineering design and got sign off, if you have all the environmental approvals in place for waste management, if, if ...you get you idea.
None of this exists in Australia 20 years would be a good result.
You mean bureaucracy bs. They could fast track it. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have already investigated and planned all of this years ago. It simply gets "go slow" by ideological wanks.
You mean bureaucracy bs. They could fast track it. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have already investigated and planned all of this years ago. It simply gets "go slow" by ideological wanks.
That's exactly why it needs to be investigated, not to do it, but to be prepared in case we have to do it.Nah not red tape etc it's all actually required and a large amount of work unless you want a Homer Simpson type operation... BTW seen far worse than that in the chemical industry at one of the top 20 hazardous sites in Australia.
The ABC has issued an apology to businessman Dick Smith just hours after he wrote to managing director David Anderson demanding corrections to an RMIT ABC Fact Check report on renewable energy that he claimed was “full of lies”.
Just one day after the fact checking unit repeatedly told The Australian it stood by its work, in an embarrassing backdown the ABC published an online apology at 8.03pm on Tuesday and made changes to the report, conceding it was riddled with errors.
Furious with his treatment by the ABC, Mr Smith wrote a letter to Mr Anderson and said the fact check was published to “discredit me and my comments so people will not trust me”.
Mr Smith said the RMIT ABC Fact Check report said: “Businessman Dick Smith has thrown his support behind calls to introduce nuclear generated power to Australia, rejecting renewable-led electricity generation in the process.”
He told Mr Anderson in his letter that this was false.
The ABC’s corrections and clarifications page said: “The first version of this article was based on the inference that in Mr Smith’s interview was only referring to electricity grids.
“After publication Mr Smith clarified that he was referring to full energy mix.
“The article has been updated to reflect that and to add information on the full energy mixes of four countries whose grids are 100 per cent renewable.”
In the apology the ABC also said: “The article also previously incorrectly stated that Mr Smith had rejected renewable-led electricity generation; this has been amended and the ABC apologises to Mr Smith for the error.”
Mr Smith sent a three-page letter to the ABC boss on Tuesday after he conducted his own fact check on the report which was published last week and circulated on social media.
In the detailed letter seen by The Australian, Mr Smith hit back at numerous claims by the taxpayer-funded fact-checking unit in the report titled, “Can a country run entirely on renewable energy?”
“I have never rejected renewable-led electricity generation. I am pro-renewables,” Mr Smith wrote.
“I drove in the first solar vehicle race and my current electric vehicle is fully solar powered.”
RMIT ABC Fact Check is funded by the two taxpayer-funded organisations and is headed up by director Russell Skelton and editorial lead Matt Martino.
The Fact Check report was edited by Ellen McCutchan and it is understood that Mr Martino approved it.
Mr Smith said he was not contacted about the fact check report before it was published.
The fact check also said Mr Smith has been “pouring cold water on suggestion that wind and solar – and renewables more generally – could instead lead the nation’s energy transition”.
Mr Smith rejected this claim. “I have never said or believed that wind and solar could not lead our nation’s energy transition,” he said.
Mr Smith also rejected claims in the fact check report that, “there are four countries running on 100 per cent wind-water-solar (WWS) alone for their grid electricity”.
“MISLEADING. Once again this is clearly intended to mislead the readers of the press release,” Mr Smith said in the letter.
“I am referring to a country running ‘entirely on renewables’ not ‘for their grid electricity’.”
The RMIT Fact Check said the “four countries running on 100 per cent WWS in 2021 were Albania, Bhutan, Nepal and Paraguay”.
Mr Smith told Mr Anderson in his letter that this comment was, “HIGHLY MISLEADING. “These are very poor countries where the people mainly rely on firewood for heating and cooking, and all use large amounts of fossil fuels for transport”.
Who fact checks the fact checkers I wonder?The ABC has issued an apology to Dock Smith after tehy used the RMIT /ABC "Fact Check" to do a number on his "facts".
What is not mentioned by the ABC is tat the head of the RMIT Fact Check org is Russel Skelton, who just happens to be the spouse of Virginnia Trioli, former ABC radio presenter and now front person for ABC Arts.
Mick
Maybe another defamation case for the ABC, the new chairman wont be happy, especially when he has just given everyone a serve for being biased and too subjective.The ABC has issued an apology to Dock Smith after tehy used the RMIT /ABC "Fact Check" to do a number on his "facts".
What is not mentioned by the ABC is tat the head of the RMIT Fact Check org is Russel Skelton, who just happens to be the spouse of Virginnia Trioli, former ABC radio presenter and now front person for ABC Arts.
Mick
The ABC has been forced to publish a clarification, conceding that viewers of a 7.30 interview with Victorian Liberal leader John Pesutto “may have understood the interview to suggest” that UK gender critical feminist Kellie-Jay Keen “has associations with neo-Nazis”.
The fact that the ABC has to apologise shows a lack of editorial rigour.Its been a busy week in the department for issuing apologies at the ABC.
Not Surprisingly, the Evil Murdoch press is gloating once again.
The actual text from The ABC corrections department reads as follows:
View attachment 173516
This may well have implications for Moira Deeming's defamation court case against Liberal Leader John Pesutto.
Pesutto effectively accused Deeming of being a neo nazi courtesy of her association with Keen.
Whats the chances of there being (another) Liberal Leader in the not to distant futre?
Mick
Yet another example of the credibility of the ABC fact checkers, that everyone is so fond of quoting.Who fact checks the fact checkers I wonder?
The part that was not mentioned was that Russell's legal team sent the unedited video and audio to the ABC legal team some two years ago pointing out that the Video the ABC aired was doctored.Yet another example of the credibility of the ABC fact checkers, that everyone is so fond of quoting.
ABC announces independent review into story that featured 'editing error' in helmet cam footage of commandos
The ABC's managing director David Anderson has announced there will be an independent review into a 2022 story that included an "editing error in the audio" of helmet cam footage captured by commandos.www.abc.net.au
Channel Seven's Spotlight program on ex-commando Heston Russell accused the ABC of adding the sound of five extra gunshots into a video clip of Australian troops firing from a helicopter in Afghanistan.
ABC managing director David Anderson said an "issue with the audio on a video accompanying the online story" was brought to the attention of ABC News last week.
Since then, based on preliminary inspection, "an editing error in the audio" had been identified and the video was removed, he said.
"This error should not have occurred," Mr Anderson said.
The video, recorded by Australian commandos in Afghanistan's Helmand province in 2012 and aired by 7.30 in September 2022, was removed from the ABC News website ahead of last Sunday's Spotlight program and on Friday the ABC removed the full online story it appeared in.
The ABC Investigations team story raised questions over the conduct of the 2nd Commando Regiment in Afghanistan, focusing on allegations of kill counts and the use of enemy casualty numbers as a measure of performance.
Smells of either an ABC witch hunting, or losing its moral compass in the name of the story.The part that was not mentioned was that Russell's legal team sent the unedited video and audio to the ABC legal team some two years ago pointing out that the Video the ABC aired was doctored.
This occurred during the discovery part of the defamation case Heston Russell bought against the ABC.
Somehow, according to Anderson, this information was never passed on to the ABC management.
Someone is going to have to come up with and explanation of why not.
Mick
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?