this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
225 points (94.5% liked)

Green Energy

2104 readers
75 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Sweetshark@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Shitty operational management is systemic in organisations that operate huge centralized systems though. see: normal accidents accidents

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Take a look at airplanes for instance.

Those things that Boeing builds?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 month 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.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Japan has high safety standards

[–] Omodi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nobody died at Fukushima and it was an outdated designed reactor that needed to be retrofitted.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 month 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.