224
submitted 5 months ago by phneutral@feddit.org to c/energy@slrpnk.net

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
[-] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

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 5 months ago

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

[-] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Yea, it would be pretty rough.

[-] revisable677@feddit.de 4 points 5 months ago
[-] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

Ultimately good for the environment, though.

[-] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

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 5 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.

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
224 points (94.4% liked)

Green Energy

2285 readers
86 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS