5 points

There’s a lot of problems with nuclear

  1. We know it’s expensive, and it takes so long to build that if that’s the only plan, it makes no sense not to install solar. So ultimately my the time it is built, it will be even less economical

  2. Same problems as coal. You can’t simply turn it on. It can take hours. That’s part of the reason for recent blackout in Vic (turbines need to sync up same speed and phase as the grid or they shit themselves, and that can take hours). Solar/batteries take 100ms and will always get the contract. Cheaper too…

  3. It’s still centralized so power in rural areas will still be crap. If you put batteries and solar in those areas though and treat them as microgrids, everyone will have more reliable power. They can stop whining about their blackouts

  4. The cost of solar and batteries right now is irrelevant. In 15 years by the time this plant is built, based on the current price drops, i think I calculated that batteries and solar are 66% - 90% cheaper. It would be stupid to think this technology doesn’t drop in cost, and improve in efficiency.

  5. We have a lot of space here in Australia for solar. So, energy density doesn’t matter like many countries.

Instead of wasting all this gd money on nuclear, they should be using it to build manufacturing factories for lithium batteries and solar.

Nuclear doesn’t solve any real issues here in Australia.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

Which is exactly why they’re pushing nuclear so hard. Ultimately it all boils down to selling more oil.

permalink
report
reply
0 points

They have said that for so many years that at those point we could have had multiple power plants running…

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Burning coal, what we badly need to transition off of, also produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant too.

God I wish all our worthless politicians weren’t in the coal companies pockets

permalink
report
reply
3 points

We had a solution for that though. Things like the carbon tax would have had a meaningful impact. And then the libs managed to make it toxic so it can’t be reintroduced

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If by that you mean the liberal party that are continuing to push anything possible other than renewable energy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

There are just better/faster options…

permalink
report
reply
1 point

We still need base load of which nuclear is the best option.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

We have way more resources and production available today to achieve an absolute amount of TWh. If anything, being able to acheive the same growth with Nuclear in the 70s and 80s is a much larger achievement when considering how much larger a portion of the total supply it represented.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I don’t agree with you but either way that doesn’t change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

How is nuclear a bad idea? It’s one of the best options. Sure it’s slow and expensive, but once it’s up and running, it’s safe, and even less radioactive than coal.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators