I am not sure how to respond to your correspondent in CCN 397 (Ignoring inconvenient truths and facts) as he appears to be wandering all over the place, so I will have to reply point by point.
For the record I do not have shares in any industry (renewable or otherwise), as I do not believe in gambling upon the fortunes of the nation, and being retired neither do I make money from construction.
He acknowledges the known problems with nuclear energy, yet he still considers it to be a viable option?
Of course no energy-generating facility is free; I was referring to the source (no mining etc), not the capital cost.
I assume the reference to “sheep” was due to the editor substituting that word for “sheeple”, which is a common portmanteau of “sheep” and “people” i.e. those who are easily led.
Finally, as there are far too many points to address I’ll conclude by noting that his criticism of large batteries will come as a surprise to the good people of Adelaide and elsewhere.
In fact, he even makes an implicit reference to this in his closing comment about keeping large quantities of energies in a box.
Email, Jul 11
Dave Horsfall, North Gosford