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
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

          • blimpkun@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Context is everyting. Here’s some cold hard facts for you:

            As of 00:00 on 19/07/2024:

            Country From % MW
            Estonia Finland 37% 358
            Latvia Estonia 33% 325
            Lithuania Sweden 40% 733

            % being the overall percentage of electricity consumption.

            So >1GW imported from SE/FI out of ~4GW total in the Baltics is imported from countries with 40-50% nuclear baseload.

            source https://electricitymaps.com/

      • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year 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
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year 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
              2
              ·
              1 year 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
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not sure if this is your first conversation on the topic but the debate is almost entirely on renewables vs nuclear.

        • ticho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

      • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Less than Spain. There is a winter. Geography and suitable areas less common. Distribution network made for power plants.

        Nuclear plants can be a better cost effective fit.