• AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s a long-term investment. Once it’s built, nuclear outright breaks the pricing scheme on fossil fuel energy. Surely the prudent thing is to have both it and renewables? To have one to shore up the other?

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I agree that nuclear is an option that ought to be considered as part of the mix.

      I’m not convinced that it’s right for Australia given our unique circumstances.

      I disagree on cost. We’ve never built nuclear. We not only need a reactor, buy need to buy all the relevant skills and build all the supports to create an industry. I genuinely believe that the cost per kWh would be far greater than our other options.

      The many hundreds of billions is better put to renewables, storage, and hydrogen cracking.

      There are some next gen reactors being built in different places. Smaller output, less waste, salt cooled. We should let others bear the cost of development and see how it pans out.

      • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        We’ve never built nuclear. We not only need a reactor, buy need to buy all the relevant skills and build all the supports to create an industry.

        Oh, that does change the calculation quite a bit. I wonder if this push has more to do with those submarines than any energy considerations.

        excited to see how the thorium rock-salt reactors progress