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.

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

          • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

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

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 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.

    • downpunxx@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      shitty operational management will continue to be shitty, because people are people, and as locked down as you try to make nuclear fission, and nuclear waste, there will always be budgetary concerns edging the safety concerns. no terrestrial nuclear, no issue. that’s my position and i’m sticking to it.

    • pedz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Just wanna add that storing energy can also be done in other forms than electricity. For example, pump water up a hill with solar energy during daytime, and use turbines and gravity during the night

      • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Those forms of energy storage r very location dependent and also quite cost inefficient. Chemical batteries make sense almost everywhere. The only problem is shitty Lithium. Replacing it with sodium ion kinda solves all problems.

      • Omodi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Nobody died at Fukushima and it was an outdated designed reactor that needed to be retrofitted.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          You stated that all nuclear a accidents were the fault of lax standards. I gave you a counter example.