Anthony Albanese will use a major economic speech to hit out at opposition nuclear plans, saying they risk stalling progress on meeting net-zero targets.
We have way more resources and production available today to achieve an absolute amount of TWh. If anything, being able to acheive the same growth with Nuclear in the 70s and 80s is a much larger achievement when considering how much larger a portion of the total supply it represented.
How is nuclear a bad idea? It’s one of the best options. Sure it’s slow and expensive, but once it’s up and running, it’s safe, and even less radioactive than coal.
Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.
There are just better/faster options…
We have way more resources and production available today to achieve an absolute amount of TWh. If anything, being able to acheive the same growth with Nuclear in the 70s and 80s is a much larger achievement when considering how much larger a portion of the total supply it represented.
I don’t agree with you but either way that doesn’t change the fact that nuclear is just slow, expensive and a bad idea in 2024.
How is nuclear a bad idea? It’s one of the best options. Sure it’s slow and expensive, but once it’s up and running, it’s safe, and even less radioactive than coal.
Because solar and wind can be deployed much faster. You rather easily have a decade of extra coal or gas emissions, if you built nuclear today.
Two things can be built at once.
Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.
So just do both at the same time.
deleted by creator
No. The total amount of money available for energy research and construction is a given amount. If it’s better spent on solar and wind that’s it.
We still need base load of which nuclear is the best option.