Green Energy

2194 readers

148 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq@slrpnk.net

SteveKLord@slrpnk.net

223

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

submitted 3 months ago by phneutral@feddit.org to c/energy@slrpnk.net

128 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

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you're talking about an extinction level event like that which caused the death of the dinosaurs then I think we have bigger problems.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are historical accounts of volcanic activity blocking the sky, I think in Europe, for a few years. For all we know it was the whole planet. That would definitely disrupt solar energy collection without being an extinction level event.

Diversity is a genuine factor of fossil fuel free energy generation.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Literally no sun for years would mean no crops which means everyone and all their animals would be dead

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yea, it would be pretty rough.

[–] revisable677@feddit.de 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mildly annoying

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ultimately good for the environment, though.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

How do you determine what is good or bad for the environment?

The environment is just the result of many interactive factors. People need to reverse the perspective and ask is the environment good for us?

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 2 points 3 months ago

It was more of a lighthearted, fun joke about how I think that humans dying out works be a good thing for biodiversity, on balance.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

then I think we have bigger problems

Care to point them out? As I've said, and expect to be common knowledge on a (I would expect) scientifically leaning community, the dinosaurs weren't killed by the meteor, their death was caused by the blacking out of the sun. You have access to energy, you can make air filters, grow food, purify water. If you don't have energy, then you die.

Regardless, this is a deflection from the main point, that was merely an extreme example, even volcanic eruptions could cause huge disruptions if you depend too much on solar power.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Care to point them out? The fact all our crops would die is a big one

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You don't need sunlight to grow crops, you just need energy; which in this scenario would require an energy source that is not the sun.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, that's hardly going to be a global solution. But whatevs this discussion is devolving into the rediculous