Green Energy

2225 readers

77 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq

SteveKLord

225

Nuclear too slow to replace coal, and baseload “simply can’t compete” with wind and solar, AEMO boss says (reneweconomy.com.au)

submitted 4 months ago by phneutral@feddit.org to c/energy

128 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The environmental damage you will cause by digging shit up from the oceans, if that’s even possible, will be insane. Absolutely insane, completely bonkers, but it does prove once again that nuclear fanbois don’t give a rat’s arse about the environment.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You don't have to dig anything, it's literally in the water, you could filter it out. In theory.

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You must be obnoxious on purpose, pulling our legs here, right? By the time we’ve collected enough for one fuel rod, humanity will either be extinct or evolved into some sort of powerful plasma creatures https://spectrum.ieee.org/uranium-from-seawater

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

How did you get that conclusion from the article you linked? The article talks about a material that can recover 6.63 mg/g per week of uranium from seawater, so a ton of it would produce just over 10lbs/week. If you produce a large enough amount of that material and put it to work it will add up to a useful amount of uranium in a short amount of time.