> Australia has plentiful solar irradiation, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, vast coastlines and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor

> Australia has plentiful solar irradiation, relatively dry climate, a well-educated population, vast coastlines and huge amounts of empty space. Seems tailor made for solar and wind powered desalination. A few words changed/added and we have solutions that have a bunch of advantages: - Lower cost (startup and running) - Faster to deploy (Tapping existing production streams) - Ability to scale more easily based on regional needs (while most of the population live near the coast, there's still a significant population that live inland who are most at risk from water shortages. There's not a national grid that covers everyone) - More acceptable to our regional neighbours (Australia using Nuclear power tech that can be pivoted to produce Nuclear weapons would likely trigger our neighbours to also have this ability) - More acceptable to the locals that have to live near it - Safer (both a direct operational safety aspect, but also less likely to trigger regional conflict) - Can be deployed close to/in existing cities and opportunity for dual-use sites (eg solar ontop of buildings, carparks; wind in existing farm fields) with minimal negative impact, and possibly positive impacts for land-owners. Why pick Nuclear when it'll take decades to deploy, cost far more and piss off our neighbours?