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.
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.
Who is suggesting solar alone?
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.
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
I’m not sure if this is your first conversation on the topic but the debate is almost entirely on renewables vs nuclear.
There are many other types of renewables than just solar.
Really? Wow! Thanks!
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.
I mean, you can ban me for a sarcastic post on your dumb one, sure go ahead if that flicks your switch I guess.
I am arguing in good faith. I live in a country where there isn’t enough good areas for wind and the weakness of the distribution network and other factors like amount of sun prevent quick installations of significant amount of solar. We already have nuclear, the knowhow and place the build more.
So you and everyone else can try to convince me that I don’t live where I do, I will still live where I live.
Now ban me and show me what a big man you are.
Did you notice yourself using the word “solar” in this conversation rather than “renewables”?
Yes. I used renewables. But I used solar before because that was specifically the conversation. What a funny and irrelevant question.
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
Woosh…
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.
Not true. You don’t seem to know much about energy policies in EU.
But well… Bye