Green Energy

2277 readers

334 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

221

Nuclear too slow to replace coal, and baseload “simply can’t compete” with wind and solar, AEMO boss says (reneweconomy.com.au)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (60 children)

I am not a supporter of terrestrial nuclear power, too many possibility for disaster, and poisonous waste by product.

We have all the energy we could ever need being bathed by the sun.

It's right there, all we have to do is harness it, store it, then distribute it. That's it.

All else is distraction and folly.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Exactly. Building nuclear power plants in the 80s should've been the way humanity went. Now, advancements in batteries (Sodium ion for example) and established supply chains means that solar/wind + batteries is the way to go.

I don't agree with ur safety take on nuclear energy though. All nuclear energy accidents were the result of shitty operational management who were warned waaaay before. It's like airlines in the 60s, where safety standards were hilariously bad. Now, with extremely stringent regulations, we can solve the safety issues.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Shitty operational management is systemic in organisations that operate huge centralized systems though. see: normal accidents accidents

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would disagree. Take a look at airplanes for instance. Good safety policy measures and enforcement can make seemingly high risk operations incredibly safe. Take a look at French nuclear reactors for example. Good nuclear safety policies, hence no accidents.

[–] marcos 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Take a look at airplanes for instance.

Those things that Boeing builds?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Less people die on airplanes than other modes of transport. So yeah, that's the level of safety despite Boeing's bullshit.

[–] marcos 1 points 5 months ago

Less people travel by planes than other modes of transport.

If you look unitary numbers, planes in general are safer than most things, not by any absurd margin. And Boeing has more than one model that just isn't safer than most things.

That should show you how bad management can destroy any kind of safety policy. But I guess it won't, not by fault of the facts.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (57 replies)