Is nuclear worth it?

A lot of regulars are huge fans of nuclear energy. So I’m linking to this WSJ op-ed to spark some thoughtful debate.

So how has anyone been able to afford to build any plants at all? In short, government support. The business model for nuclear power generation relies primarily on extracting huge amounts of taxpayer subsidies.

This has been true since the industry’s early days. Nuclear power in the U.S. received subsidies of $15.30 per kilowatt hour between 1947 and 1961—the first 15 years during which nuclear technology was used for civilian power generation—compared to subsidies of $7.19 per kilowatt hour for solar power and 46 cents for wind power between 1975 and 1989, the first 15 years when those technologies came into more widespread use. Nuclear operators are often protected by laws limiting liability that shift most of the expense of serious accidents to the public, thus shielding operators from the costs of insuring a potentially more dangerous technology.

All of this ought to raise questions in a lot of minds in Asia, where nuclear increasingly has been viewed as the next big energy thing. Asian governments purport to have plans to build 110 nuclear power plants between 2010 and 2030. Achieving this build-out would necessitate hundreds of billions of dollars of continued subsidies. Conservatively estimating a per-plant cost of $5 billion, and very conservatively estimating subsidies equal to one-third of project costs (it’s closer to 70%-80% in the U.S.), that still works out to around $180 billion in subsidies simply to build the plants, let alone operate them. Can Asia afford that?

Nuclear-power proponents often argue that the market should decide whether nuclear makes sense. They’re right. The reality is that but for government support, nuclear is a terrible business proposition. Asian policy makers should take note.

To be clear, I’m not overly interested in the the safety implications of nuclear – people get as much safety as they are prepared to pay for, rather the basic business model seems flawed.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Is nuclear worth it?

  1. daddy dave

    Australia is running out of time.
    We have a very aged, run down suite of coal fired power stations. Some are well past their official use-by date.
    If we don’t start building new power stations soon, our electricity bills will rise.

    Crunch time is coming. If wind farms and solar aren’t delivering, then it’s nukes or coal. Coal is cheaper.

  2. C.L.

    It’s a good point. Can anyone suggest a possible commercial model whereby anyone or any corporate entity in Australia could or would run a nuke plant?

    I can’t see it without traditional Australian dirigisme – only on a far larger scale than anything we’ve seen before.

    Bear in mind that we can’t even build a dam and the Bligh government couldn’t even manage an existing one.

    Coal is king. Beautiful coal. And we’ve got hundreds and hundreds of years of the stuff.

  3. paul walter

    Sinclair Davidson has really presented a very good thread starter, with this one commenting on this pervasive inertia that overtakes people and societies regardless of ideology or system in place.
    We may not live in a command economy, but some of the culture and decision makes for as much inefficiency as the old East European system ever created, driven by a strangley familiar irrationality

  4. daddy dave

    Coal is king.

    I’m coming around to this opinion. But Australians have been spooked by the global warming ghost story; and so they no longer want cheap, affordable electricity.

  5. rog

    The real costs of nuclear are unknown – present builds are way over budget in dollars and time. Disposal of waste is a serious issue that has been uncosted and the carbon emissions incurred during construction of the plants plus the mining and processing of the ore are also unclear.

    A lot of the arguments for nuclear were untested – Fukushima has destroyed more than a few misconceptions.

  6. C.L.

    carbon emissions incurred during construction

    Is that a joke?

    Who gives a crap about that?

    Fukushima has destroyed more than a few misconceptions.

    Fukushima has proved just how do-able and safe nuclear is – speaking technically (rather than economically – this thread’s topic).

    Worst earthquake in modern times: no radiation crisis, no deaths directly caused.

    Pink batts: idea of warmenists, the scheme killed four people and incinerated 200 homes.

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    Fukushima is neither here nor there. The costs of nuclear in geologically stable and tsunami immune areas are not affected by isolated events.

  8. rog

    Which area is “tsunami immune”?

  9. C.L.

    Ditto for waste storage. Most of Australia is empty and stunningly stable, geologically. Technically, Australia was made for nuke.

    But where’s the money coming from?

    That is the question nukoes need to answer.

  10. rog

    Who gives a crap about that?

    It is nuclear’s only argument.

  11. Chris M

    I believe the newer smaller reactor designs will be more economically viable. I read about a Toshiba design that is the size of a couple of shipping containers. It is sealed and could power a good size shopping mall or similar for 20 odd years, then it is completely shipped off for processing.

    I believe the cost was in the order of less than 10cents per kw/hr over the lifespan of the plant.

    Any reactor or coal / gas fired plant is going to be WAY more efficient than windmills (except at killing things, nothing beats a windmill then not even Rudd).

  12. C.L.

    Rog is saying we might wake up one morning following a tsunami and see a ship resting atop Uluru.

  13. twostix

    Which area is “tsunami immune”?

    Anywhere more than about 10 metres above sea level and / or more than a couple of kilometres inland?

    Or a tsunamis going to be next next big oogadaboogada from the perpetual scare machine that nobody and nothing is safe from, so nothing can ever be done again done *just in case* (TM).

  14. daddy dave

    Which area is “tsunami immune”?

    How many tsunamis do you think Dubbo gets per century?

  15. paul walter

    Davidson: “the costs of nuclear…are not effected by isolated events”.
    No, these are additonal to the costs already identified as part of the process.
    Most lefties aren’t against development per se either, we’d just like a bit of forthought and planning go into some of these things, particularly when the community is assigned costs for bailing out ill considered stuff ups by developers, bankers etc.
    Deep Water Horizon in the gulf of Mexico is another example.

  16. TerjeP

    Nuclear operators are often protected by laws limiting liability that shift most of the expense of serious accidents to the public, thus shielding operators from the costs of insuring a potentially more dangerous technology.

    This line is often run against nuclear. It’s true but misleading. Nobody will insure anything with no limit to liability. I might be able to insure my car for third party property damage up to $20 million but that still leaves society carrying the bulk of the possible (but not probable) liability that extends from $20 million to infinity. The same concept is true for nuclear. No insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant for an infinite third party liability. And in countries where nuclear operates no government expects nuclear operators to insure for accidents up to infinity. As with everything the governments in such nations accept liability for costs beyond a certain threshold. The issue is not whether there is a threshold but the level it should be set at.

    As for the subsidy figures given they seem dubious to me. From what I have read nuclear power was considered cheaper than coal in the 1970s. The suggestion is that places like Japan and France spend inordinate capital amounts for a very poor energy return. I’m sceptical that this is true. Although obviously I wouldn’t pretend that there energy deployments had been perfectly optimal.

    However let’s test it. Let’s remove prohibition, insist on reasonable design, construction and operation regulations and see what the market decides. I feel very confident that nuclear would in practice be more cost effective by a country mile than solar, wind or deep earth geothermal (which is nuclear anyway).

  17. C.L.

    Most lefties… just like a bit of forthought and planning go into some of these things.

    Yeah, we all noticed that during Rudd’s home insulation barbecue.

  18. Gabrielle

    How many tsunamis do you think Dubbo gets per century?

    rog is now feverishly googling this…

  19. twostix

    Moving near Newcastle has shown me the absurd nature of the whole anti-coal hysteria and the stupidity and hypocrisy of the left.

    They’ve just added another enormous (magnificent to see built!) loader to the new hastily constructed dock on the river on the northern side of the city, I think they can service seven ships at a time now. There’s coal mountains as far as the eye can see and must be hundreds of millions of dollars of new infrastructure going in there every year.

    A kilometer long coal train runs about every twenty minutes through Maitland to Newcastle. The whole setup is awe inspiring. Such an enormous scale of production, such rapid construction!

    All to send our “demon coal” to the power plants in China for next to nothing while this little family pays $2400 a year for electricity and worries about the coming rolling black outs and $3000+ a year bills.

    All the while there’s enough coal sitting on the ground at Newcastle at any given day to power the state for probably a month or more.

    Typically, Newcastle who benefit enormously from this “dirty industry”, without which would once again be the poverty stricken shit hole that it used to be is also home to the worst rat bag lefties this side of Melbourne.

    Insanity defined.

  20. daddy dave

    However let’s test it. Let’s remove prohibition, insist on reasonable design, construction and operation regulations and see what the market decides. I feel very confident that nuclear would in practice be more cost effective by a country mile than solar, wind or deep earth geothermal (which is nuclear anyway).

    I expect you’re right Terje.

    But at what point do we stop waiting for wind and solar to be viable and build some new coal powered stations?

  21. TerjeP

    Daddy – in the current political environment I don’t think many investors want to build coal fired power stations. They are more likely to build gas fired plants.

  22. Which area is “tsunami immune”?

    Pretty much any area of coastline that isn’t in the direct path of a major fault line, Rog. It’s really not that difficult a concept.

    Most of Australia, in other words.

  23. JC

    Quodge says:

    Which area is “tsunami immune”?

    For lord’s sake can someone take this moron out in a strait jacket. it’s oppressive having to be subjected to this.

    ——–
    Large scale nukes aren’t cheap by a long shot however the reason is that nearly all are built to particular spec and therefore like made to order.

    There’s a lot of hope for small scale reactors and battery packs that essentially come off the assembly line.

    However the Nuke regulators in the US have not approved a new reactor for the past 30 odd years.

    There are plans to create 5 specs in large scale nukes and that would solve the problem of their expense.

  24. Plus if you are really worried about Tsunamis you could just build the plant on a hill.

  25. Michael Sutcliffe

    All energy is going to be expensive when your default position is close to the cheapest energy in the world (I suspect). Even hydro probably isn’t cheaper than coal.

  26. JC

    But where’s the money coming from?

    Private operators… Firms like Duke Energy for instance. Don’t forget that Labor in NSW received primary indications of $30 billion at the beginning of the decade for the coal plants etc and now were scrambling for $5 billion because of the coal scare.

    There’s money if there is a reasonable rate of return. That isn’t an issue.

  27. JC

    Plus if you are really worried about Tsunamis you could just build the plant on a hill.

    In Victoria you’d just build them where the coal plants are. No problem and it deep inland.

    This is a stupid fucking issue. That fucking moron shouldn’t be allowed to derail threads with stupid points like this.

  28. JC

    Bids on nuke plants are interesting in the way they are set up. The government or the entity asks for bids for X amount of power and the producers price it on the basis of per kwatt hour.

  29. JC

    The real issue for Oz though is that we have a truly amazing advantage in power that really an absolute advantage.

    We have tons of brown coal for which is no international price so essentially it’s almost free.

    If we set up for gas or nuke we’re basically at the mercy of the international price in an energy hungry world. These days it doesn’t matter that much because state and Federal Labor has fucked up the coal plants so much that places like Korea can import coal and still produce cheaper energy than we can.

    These ALP government have been fucking vandals. The party along with the Greens should be sued.

  30. My friend Gene Preston (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/index.php/eugene-preston) has an interesting view on this. To quote:

    “there is an interesting problem that arises in the economics and dispatchability. There are three ways to finance a project.

    One way is to charge the capital cost as part of the energy cost when dispatching. This would be the market approach in ERCOT. Nuclear and solar do not stand a chance with this way of financing because the energy cost is too high compared to existing fossil generation. From the customer’s perspective the energy cost is too high also. This is why PPA’s purchase power agreements look terrible, because the capital cost is included in the kWh sales.

    Another traditional way to finance a project is the conventional utility method in which a generation optimization program such as PROMOD is used to minimize the total present value cost of the plan. This closely aligns with the lowest LCOEs of the individual sources. However the PROMOD program takes dispatching into account and then minimizes the overall cost. Its a good approach and we used it in the 70s and 80s to justify nuclear plants as well as coal plants and gas plants as peakers. The problem with this approach is that with an open market there is no way the private companies can collect the debt incurred by building new base loaded plants. In Texas the open market has resulted in the lowest capital cost projects, gas plants. For a while it was believed that the higher cost fo gas could be used to help finance new coal and nuclear plants. But then the gas prices dropped with fracking and now there is no chance of raising enough capital to build a base loaded plant. I’m not sure how NRG plans to pay for their portion of the new STP plant because they run the risk of another company selling power in their area and undercutting their sales of energy out of the nuclear plant. Municipal utilities like Austin and San Antonio have a captive market and can charge the fixed capital financing costs in their base rates. Thats why NRG is so interested in San Antonio and Austin being partners in the nuclear plant.

    The third way of financing is my idea. There is no capital cost charged at all in the energy cost. The capital cost is prepaid by the investors. Now when those plants are put on line their incremental energy costs will be dirt cheap compared to coal and gas plants and wiil get dispatched before fossil fuels. How much money the pre paid for plants can make depends on how much the gas plants charge for energy to stay alive. Because the pre paid plants can always bid just under the gas plants they are assured of being base loaded and energy sales will be high. The lesser energy of the gas plants will require them to bid higher to cover their O&M and fuel costs. In this model the pre paid plants have complete control over both the market and their futures. Its going to be the only game in town if it is ever attempted and succeeds.”

    It’s certainly a different sort of model. More details at the link I gave at the top of this comment.

  31. Boris

    Fukushima has destroyed more than a few misconceptions.

    Yes. It showed how safe nuclear energy is. Even a 1970 plant made to 1960s design withstands world’s second largest earthquake on record located only 200 km away, and the second biggest Tsunami on record, with only minor impact.

    If this cannot knock out a nuclear plat, what can?

  32. Boris

    Which area is “tsunami immune”?

    I am probably the closest thing to a Tsunami expert on Catallaxy. I used to be involved in tsunami related research, attended a number of Tsunami conferences, and know all top experts.

    The only areas remotely volnurable to Tsunami waves are low lying areas of the coastline.

    Not sure why the Japanese decided to build their plant right on the cost. Perhaps because it is so densely populated. Certainly not the case in Australia.

  33. JC

    Boris

    I would guess they built the plants there because they are old water based reactors and if there was a need for sea water to cool them them it was accessible and possibly had several pipes leading to the sea in case one broke.

    Lets also not forget this quake was something like 1 in 1000 year and they would never have covered for such a thing and the resulting tsunami.

  34. Boris

    would guess they built the plants there because they are old water based reactors and if there was a need for sea water to cool them them it was accessible…

    Sea water is about the worst thing you can use for cooling as it is exremely corrosive and immediately makes the reactor a write-off.

    Lets also not forget this quake was something like 1 in 1000 year and they would never have covered for such a thing and the resulting tsunami.

    I am not pusuaded by this argument. Yes it was the biggest earthquake, but a smaller earthquake closer to the plant would have caused the same effect. Ditto for tsunami. Tsunami is a japanese word, mind you. They know the risks. The fault line runs prallel to the shoreline, so they could have easiliy have a M=8 one right next to the plant.

  35. JC

    Sea water is about the worst thing you can use for cooling as it is exremely corrosive and immediately makes the reactor a write-off.

    I know, but not in an emergency when you have to shut it off at all costs.

    I get you point about the earthquakes but as for the tsunami there were protective walls but obviously not for this sized wave.

  36. Boris

    yes in the extreme emergency the sea water has been helpful. But had they built it away from the low-lying coast, there won’t be an emergency.

    Of course, granted, this is only one type of emergency. Other types of improbable eventualities had to be considered.

  37. conrad

    “Fukushima is neither here nor there. The costs of nuclear in geologically stable and tsunami immune areas are not affected by isolated events.”

    Alternatively, it is exceptionally hard to try and value the cost of storing the waste, since some of it needs to be stored longer than humans have existed for. How does one evaluate the economic cost of this?

    A second less philosophical problem is that countries get rich and go broke fairly quickly, and broke countries want to use their reactors far longer than the use by dates (when was Chernobyl finally closed?) and then can’t afford the cost of decommissioning them. Some rich countries do also. To get around this problem, private companies have been forced to post bonds at the start of their construction to pay for this, but even that hasn’t worked in some cases.

  38. Sleetmute

    I don’t know much about the long-run marginal costs of nuclear, therefore I can’t comment on the figures from Jim Harding of the Keystone center (cited earlier in the op-ed).
    But what I can say is that while those subsidy figures may or may not be accurate historically, they don’t seem vaguely realistic going forward. The average wholesale electricity price is about 5c/kWh and the average retail price is about 20c/kWh. So to say nuclear will require a subsidy of anything like $15/kWh (ie dollars instead of cents) seems outlandish. Even historically, it is hard to believe that government would have subsidised a technology to the tune of 300 times the cost of a fossil fuel alternative. Sovacool doesn’t name any sources for those figures. Seems a bit dodgy…

  39. Sinclair Davidson

    Walter ‘Most lefties aren’t against development per se either, we’d just like a bit of forthought and planning go into some of these things, particularly when the community is assigned costs for bailing out ill considered stuff ups by developers, bankers etc.’
    Most righties would agree with all that. 🙂

  40. dover_beach

    Which is to say that having forethought the remoteness of a tsunami in the circumstances we can set it aside and consider other more probable difficulties. None of which is peculiar to Lefties, as Sinc says.

  41. Boris I was under the impression that Nuclear plants have to built next to an inexhaustible water source according to regulations. So barring any large lakes, on the coast is the only option.

  42. TerjeP

    Barry – if I understand your piece correctly the issue for nuclear, which has extremely low fuel costs but high capital costs, is the need to achieve a high utilization rate. As such the idea that the business model for a nuclear plant in an open market should be that of price taker, not price setter, makes complete sense. They should run 24×7 at peak capacity and take whatever price the market gives them. If your marginal cost is close to zero, as it is for nuclear, then it is easy to undercut the market price at any time.

    Building the business case is then just a matter of integrating the expected market price over time and seeing if there is enough return to cover the capital. Of course this assumes that the plant is small relative to the market such that it can operate continuously at it’s peak output.

    Where it would get interesting is what then happens to price strategy over time if most of the market is nuclear plants competing with other nuclear plants. I suspect that the incentive for mergers and acquisitions between the players then becomes huge.

  43. Sleetmute

    Terje, our energy-only market (the National Electricity Market or NEM) provides price signals for peaking plant to meet peak demand. You wouldn’t get a situation where most capacity was nuclear – you’d also have mid-merit and peaking gas.

  44. StKilda

    Nuclear costs about twice as much as coal, (cap cost very high, operating cost very low, as Terje said). If Nuclear qualified for MRET, it would be viable now – since it is cheaper than wind, which is the only renewable that MRET has made viable).

    Alternatively, $30/t carbon tax would make a new coal plant allmost as expensive as fission.

  45. TerjeP

    I think the goal ought to be to make nuclear plants cheaper via a mass global market for standardised plant designs, built in large numbers. Designs like the Westinghouse AP1000.

  46. Fran Barlow

    AIUI, the Fukushima site was originally about 15m above sea level and was excavated to give the plant easier access to sea-water. (I’d like to confirm this). If so, it looks a horrible decision in hindsight but it really says much less about nuclear power than about the calculus of risk the designers allowed.

    In the period when the plant was being specified (1960-64), there were tsunamis on both sides of Honshu and in the first in 1960 Valdivia (on the other side of the pacific) sent a 6m tsunami to Japan that killed about 200 people. You might have thought this would have given them pause. Build it at the water’s edge? I think not.

    Apparently, the plant was specified to cope with a quake of 7.3 moment magnitude right under it. Instead it got 9.0 about 130km away with a focal depth of nearly 25metres. As odd as it sounds, that means they got off light. 25m is the depth at which some seismologists doubt tsunamis are possible unless the quake exceeds about 6.5 moment magnitude. Had it been at an FD of 14 metres — as many quakes on the Pacific rim have been — the consequences don’t bear thinking about. I heard the other daay that the tsunami height at the plant was 14m. Again, I don’t know that this was true, but if so, it is truly frightening to think that the people of Honshu merely got a serious injury rather than a total catastrophe.

    One might say that if you have suffered a catastrophe, the fact that a nuclear plant has somewhat added to the problems, though regrettable, is just something to be added to the tragedy. The same or similar might apply to almost any significant industrial facility — a chemical plant, maybe even a dam. Unless you are going to declare no development at all — which has long run pernicious consequences for human life chances greater (albeit of less media interest) than that added by most developments one would consider important — then objecting to nuclear plants in particular is unreasonable. Fukushima was not, as far as can be told, an ordinary industrial accident caused by incompetence by those operating the plant. It was a feature of an unprecedented natural disaster in which some poor design work at the build stage was exposed and in which the plant configuration — a BWR — performed less well than would GenIII plants.

    Apart, arguably from the questions of siting and design above, it seems perverse in this context to argue that this natural disaster raises concerns for the nuclear power industry as a whole.

  47. TerjeP

    I think it is hard to refute the notion that there were design flaws. Or rather that the design parameters were poorly chosen. Of more concern in my view is that there are still eleven Chernobyl style reactors in operation with no significant containment.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK/#Status

    These are in my view (not that qualified I admit) a bigger concern than reactors built near the sea. Still Chernobyl had a lower death per TWh rate than your average coal fired plant.

  48. Adrian

    if its economically viable get venture capital, bring it to market and let consumers decide!!!

    it will not happen that way because nothing beats coal for price and quality of service.

  49. TerjeP

    Adrian – what makes you claim that coal electricity is better quality than nuclear electricity?

  50. JC

    Adrian

    Before 3 Mile Island there were plans to build 400 reactors in the US and the expectation was that the price of power would fall below US coal.

    Nuke has been hobbled for 30 years, so it’s a little premature to say “nothing” beats coal.

    There’s a lot of coal around but the accessible easy to get to is being used up and the price will rise.

    Meanwhile economic scaling would cause the price of reactors to fall.

  51. JC

    if its economically viable get venture capital, bring it to market and let consumers decide!!

    That would be true. However the US agency responsible hasn’t approved a new reactor for 30 years despite people fronting up with plans.

    It’s not that easy to say.

    Private equity would move in to fill the void if they thought the regulators were onside. That wouldn’t be a problem.

  52. TerjeP

    Many articles and studies claims that nuclear becomes competitive with coal if we have a carbon tax of around $30 per ton. At about 1kg of CO2 per kWh for coal that suggests a price difference between coal and nuclear (required subsidy) of 3 cents per kWh. Possibly a little higher for some coal plants that are more efficient.

    For a detailed examination of the economics the following article is worth a read.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

    Fuel seems to be a rather minimal and insensitive component in final price. Capital cost is the main issue. And capital cost seems to be lowest when build times are lowest. It is the build phase where things are most vulnerable to cost blowouts if there is political interference. I would not wish to personally invest in nuclear power unless it had solid bipartisan support.

  53. JC

    It is the build phase where things are most vulnerable to cost blowouts if there is political interference.

    Yea, but the small nuke reactors are basically coming out of a factory and my guess is that we will see more and more of the big ones being built like that ans simply assembled on the site… like an Ikea product.

    Nuke plants prices will fall drastically in the future.

  54. TerjeP

    There’s a lot of coal around but the accessible easy to get to is being used up and the price will rise.

    This is true on multiple counts. There are certainly reserves that are technically easy to extract but they tend not to be close to existing transport infrastructure or in politically difficult areas.

    In Australia the current bottleneck is in ports and rail. And both of those facilities have regulated access regimes. I’m not completely sure of the details but when I see the huge queues of ships outside Newcastle my economic thinking tells me that landing slots are not being priced properly.

    China incorporates global transport corridors into their economic plans because access to fuel is a strategic risk to their growth plans.

    A switch to nuclear represents a truely massive reduction in transport requirements.

  55. TerjeP

    JC – I agree regarding factory production but there is a chicken and egg problem. You need volumes to set up an effective production line.

  56. Adrian

    quality = safety and reliability. sure, no one died that we know of from the recent events in Japan, but look at all the resources that needed to be brought to bear to ensure that no one would die. you need a whole new safety regulatory agency, a raft of new laws, emergency services would need a response capability, more education funding to provide a capable workforce, then additional resources for waste disposal, etc…in otherwords the total cost to taxpayers would be huge in order to satisfy safety concerns. reliability is not a concern, unlike ‘renewables’.

    every analysis i have seen indicates that nuclear can never be as cheap as coal in producing electricity, fo what ever reason. scaling it is not enough to overcome pricing issues. coal generation can scale up to and probably has more experience than nuclear in this regard.

    if nuclear can make it on price and quality then no problem, but i doubt it can.

  57. you need a whole new safety regulatory agency

    Fightin’ words at the Cat.

    No nuclear isn’t worth it. Whether you ‘believe’ in AGW or not, it ain’t. It doesn’t matter if a country with Australia’s population burns coal.

    Sheesh, a scientific hypothesis has been reduced to an agenda point in the Religious War. What a revoltin’ predicament.

  58. TerjeP

    There is more nuclear waste from burning coal. There are more deaths from burning coal. There is loads or regulation relating to coal mine safety. You need 20000 more coal mines that uranium mines for the same energy (assuming mines of equal tonnage). *

    * disclaimer – I work for a coal mining company. These are purely personal opinions.

  59. Curious,

    Davidson complains “that the government was unwilling to listen to any opinions it didn’t like”. How interesting, when he and his pals do exactly the same thing. In fact they go further in that they slime people who challenge them. ICan’t defend, just smear.
    Oh, and it’s not hard Leftists they smear. It’s genuine Liberals and it is genuine Liberals they suppress.

    Funny, Davidson how you and your pals in the IPA CIS and HR Nicholls do exactly what you complain of. And, also complain of, say ABC of, ‘bias’ and suppression.

    Anyway, Sinkers, I’m back in and I’m in the business of sinking cowards pretending to defend Liberal principles Liberal Party and free markets while smearing those who do.

    Sinclair Davidson, whose IPA CIS articles are rot has a real nerve whining in view of what he and his pals are really about.
    The only thing they defend is themselves.

Comments are closed.