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.

    • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Which countries? The UK is famous for its cloudy weather, yet solar is feasible there. Finland and Sweden are building more and more solar. Not sure where you’re talking about.

            • ticho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Well, that’s a bald-faced lie. Maybe if we were only talking about Lithuania, which does import big chunk of its energy budget from Sweden, but Estonia and Latvia generate most of their energy on their own - and according to the linked article, plan to generate even more in near future.

          • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Everyone is or at least tries to portray they are. Your article could be written for almost any country in the world.

            But that doesn’t mean a country can be run on solar alone.

              • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Many people seem to think that’s the idea. I don’t know about you, but when you frame the discussion as solar vs nuclear, that is what you are suggesting.

                • kaffiene@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I mean, it’s fair to compare the two techs but that’s different from suggesting that you need a single approach to generation. No one is seriously suggesting that only solar for generation is sensible

                  • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    I’m not sure if this is your first conversation on the topic but the debate is almost entirely on renewables vs nuclear.

            • ticho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              No, the article definitely could not be written for any country in the world, because it lists concrete actions, numbers for past few years, and concrete plans for next few years.

              But judging from your comments here and elsewhere in the thread, you do not care about discussion, and will move goalposts whenever it suits you. You are not a nice person. So, PLONK.

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Until a weather event blocks out most of the sunlight. An extreme scenario would be what happened to the dinosaurs, however smaller scale versions or that, such as large volcano eruptions, seem entirely possible and could heavily restrict the amount of sunlight you have access to for long periods of time.

        Portugal lies in Southern Europe, we get plenty of sun, and we make heavy use of solar, but that still isn’t enough sometimes, and I’m pretty sure we sometimes get our energy from Spain, who themselves use nuclear.