Nuclear, again

Ah, Jason:  another day, another re-tweet of a wrong, Right wing take:

I agree with this response, and think Gray's response is so weak:

I have to run and do something - I will come back later to update this.

Update:   Connolly claims this -

I want him to quantify "many".   I mean, there's him and Jason Soon - and who else?

Another Tweeter makes the point about the current subsidies nuclear is needing (go and read the thread):

I suppose that attack is a little unfair, if you read Connolly's endorsement of a carbon tax for nuclear as an admission that nuclear does need subsidies.   But then, it does make his "I hate renewables because it needs subsidies" argument sound distinctly dubious. 

John Quiggin has been pushing this line recently - OK, conservatives, let's not rule out nuclear as long as you will agree to a carbon tax to make it work economically.   And you are getting some people like Connolly saying "OK".

But - are they going to live with the consequence that, with a carbon tax working as a "subsidy" for any form of clean energy (I mean, wasn't this is how a carbon tax was meant to work, free market conservatives?), no one thinks that energy investment is going to head into nuclear anyway?

As many on the Left correctly perceive, resistance to renewables is not as objective and reasonable as conservatives like Connolly like to pretend.

And when he can start pointing to even a substantial minority of Coalition politicians who are  endorsing an "economy crushing" (as they have argued for more than a decade) carbon tax, I might take him more seriously.