Sincere good luck establishing productive debate. In my last exchanges on the subject years ago, I'd had enough of personal attacks, badgering & sealioning. Yes, I am a nuclear advocate because I know it works, first hand, as first hand as one can get.

I will be able to speak freely on the detail here in the very near future. And I will be. I have some big projects in the works, but for now I will just say that terms like ‘unbelievable scandal’ are if anything, understating, not overstating, the reality. I want to make three points about @QuixoticQuant: 1. The 'bad boy' framing is extremely unfair. Aidan is one of the most respectful and civilised in the energy debate in Australia. He is fairer than most - not a rusted-on nuclear bro, a staunch critic of SMRs, and he consistently concedes the challenges of a nuclear future in Aus. He always comes with evidence, and if he does identify people, it's always linked to a problem or evidence, not just a naked ad-hominem attack. There are much worse exponents of the latter on both sides of the debate. I would go as far to say that Aidan is one of the only good faith actors in the debate. And clearly, there is significant personal cost in occupying the position where even the slightest inquisition of the market bodies and climate movement gets you labelled as a dangerous, rabble-rousing heretic. If one was more interested in their personal financial or career interests, it would be far more rational to toe the party line, blindly cheerlead, and virtue signal to the top. Shut up and dribble. 2. He is one of, if not, the most rigorous and data-driven in the debate. In any other debate, the asymmetry between each sides’ quality and quantity of evidence would warrant a reversal of this status quo—where the evidence-driven side declares the hysterical side as ‘rabble-rousers’. It’s been almost 2 years since the first GenCost article was published on @DrCameronMurray FET, and there is still no substantive pushback on Aidan’s conclusions. No-one can refute any feature, or debunk any finding of what is now an extensive body of work at the @CISOZ. But because the conclusions drawn are so damning, and so many have so much sunk career cost in the renewables cheerleading team, it’s basically 'banish the whistleblower' at all costs. We have a situation where our energy system is guided by the virtue signalling and moral hope-ium from a professional activist class instead of evidence, at the cost of all Australians. 3. The ‘vested interests’ argument is nonsensical. Aidan is theoretical particle physicist, an entrepreneur and came from big data/machine learning before the energy space. I’m also in the NFP think tank space - it’s much less glamourous and scrappy as you might assume - and I would hazard a guess that Aidan could go and be much more handsomely compensated in the private sector to push ‘vested interests’ on both sides. I would guess that Aidan is making significant sacrifices in earning potential (relative to his skillset) and taking on significant career risk in doing this work in the public interest. The fact that the other side - including Aidan’s loudest public critic and literally a billionaire heirloom - label him the poster boy for dangerous vested interests is so disingenuous and lazy that it’s basically projecting at this point. You can feel the sense of frustration and helplessness here. We’re in a tragedy of the commons and there is very little safe space left for the muckrakers to coalesce. I truly hope Aidan is recognised in due time for his tremendous efforts and work, but also his courage.