3 ms·

I don't understand this love affair with nuclear energy, especially in a country full of sunny deserts. Cover a fraction of it in solar panels coupled with sod

I don't understand this love affair with nuclear energy, especially in a country full of sunny deserts. Cover a fraction of it in solar panels coupled with sodium batteries, and the problem is solved. But for some reason this idea is not being considered seriously. Why? I understand in the 50's we needed reactors to create plutonium to fend off russians. I understand in the 80's the solar panels were expensive. But now, when the panels are cheap and lithium batteries are cost competitive and sodium batteries are being actively developed (and already put into cars), there is simply no excuse. Why then?

BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
Entrenched status quo. A variation of 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Sadly. Australia is the same. More sunshine than we know what to do with. Vast amounts of land that is essentially unpopulated and no good for much else (arguably, the beauty of nature etc.), and yet we have two main political parties: one is passionately anti-renewables and essentially drill-baby-drill whilst the other is milquetoast on renewables. ... all the while Australia is dependent upon importing the power that fuels critical infrastructure and logistics. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, unless the status quo is making massive profits and can't face the possibility of any alternative. Bring on the funerals.
- java-man 6mo ago
  I don't think this explains it. My theory is that it is either a) expensive (meaning much more money can be extracted from the taxpayers) or b) we do need to keep the nuclear physicist employed (but why cancel SSC then?)
RealityVoid 6mo ago
If the economics really line up, it will happen the way you say. I personally like nuclear as well since it pumps out a lot of power and works great as a network baseline. I don't see them as excluding one another but complementing eachother for different areas.
gosub100 6mo ago
datacenters need to run at night too, so they can put us all out of work.
2snakes 6mo ago
Not enough copper right now.
MrMember 6mo ago
We will always need some form of baseline power. Solar, wind, and other renewables are an important component of overall power generation but we still need something capable of generating power 24/7/365, in all weather conditions.

BLKNSLVR 6mo ago

Entrenched status quo. A variation of 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Sadly. Australia is the same. More sunshine than we know what to do with. Vast amounts of land that is essentially unpopulated and no good for much else (arguably, the beauty of nature etc.), and yet we have two main political parties: one is passionately anti-renewables and essentially drill-baby-drill whilst the other is milquetoast on renewables. ... all the while Australia is dependent upon importing the power that fuels critical infrastructure and logistics. Makes no fucking sense whatsoever, unless the status quo is making massive profits and can't face the possibility of any alternative. Bring on the funerals.

java-man 6mo ago
I don't think this explains it. My theory is that it is either a) expensive (meaning much more money can be extracted from the taxpayers) or b) we do need to keep the nuclear physicist employed (but why cancel SSC then?)

RealityVoid 6mo ago

If the economics really line up, it will happen the way you say. I personally like nuclear as well since it pumps out a lot of power and works great as a network baseline. I don't see them as excluding one another but complementing eachother for different areas.

gosub100 6mo ago

datacenters need to run at night too, so they can put us all out of work.

2snakes 6mo ago

Not enough copper right now.

MrMember 6mo ago

We will always need some form of baseline power. Solar, wind, and other renewables are an important component of overall power generation but we still need something capable of generating power 24/7/365, in all weather conditions.