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.

      • ticho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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
      ·
      2 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
          ·
          2 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
            ·
            2 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
              ·
              2 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.

                  • poVoq@slrpnk.netM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    You are not arguing in good faith if you use exclusively solar in one sentence and then make sweeping generalisations about renewables in another. And yes, consider this a final warning from a mod of this community.

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

                Did you notice yourself using the word “solar” in this conversation rather than “renewables”?

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

                  Yes. I used renewables. But I used solar before because that was specifically the conversation. What a funny and irrelevant question.

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

                    FFS if you can’t see that changing the topic of conversation effects the meaning of people’s responses then I don’t know what to tell you. I’m done here

      • ticho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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.