Comment on Nuclear too slow to replace coal, and baseload “simply can’t compete” with wind and solar, AEMO boss says

• kaffiene@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m not sure what kind of sudden weather event covers all the sun for Australia. Seems a little farcical

  source

  • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I already mentioned 2.

    Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years.

    Picture a super volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles

    Here’s a quote from the wiki on super volcanos:

    Large-volume supervolcanic eruptions are also often associated with large igneous provinces, which can cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash. These can cause long-lasting climate change (such as the triggering of a small ice age) and threaten species with extinction. The Oruanui eruption of New Zealand’s Taupō Volcano (about 25,600 years ago) was the world’s most recent VEI-8 eruption.

    Also, you wouldn’t need it to cover all of Australia to be disastrous, just enough to block a significant amount of solar farms.

    source

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If you’re talking about an extinction level event like that which caused the death of the dinosaurs then I think we have bigger problems.

      source

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        There are historical accounts of volcanic activity blocking the sky, I think in Europe, for a few years. For all we know it was the whole planet. That would definitely disrupt solar energy collection without being an extinction level event.

        Diversity is a genuine factor of fossil fuel free energy generation.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        then I think we have bigger problems

        Care to point them out? As I’ve said, and expect to be common knowledge on a (I would expect) scientifically leaning community, the dinosaurs weren’t killed by the meteor, their death was caused by the blacking out of the sun. You have access to energy, you can make air filters, grow food, purify water. If you don’t have energy, then you die.

        Regardless, this is a deflection from the main point, that was merely an extreme example, even volcanic eruptions could cause huge disruptions if you depend too much on solar power.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Marin_Rider@aussie.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I think if a planet killer asteroid hits it won’t exactly matter our solar panels don’t work mate

      source

      • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        sight

        The meteor didn’t kill the dinosaurs, it was the dust cloud that did so by blacking out the sun. If you have sources of energy that are not reliant on the sun, it is very much possible to survive it. You can use artificial light to make grow food, and you can even make air processors if plants start dying. But you can’t do that if you have no power.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t think anyone mentioned the economy here in this thread, so I’m not sure what the relevance of that is unless I’m misunderstanding your criticism there.

  For my comment specifically I’m not worried about the economy, but the unit cost of energy. Simply put if nuclear has a higher unit cost that means we can’t replace as much fossil fuel generation vs other lower unit cost sources of energy for the same price.

  I agree with your criticism of folks complaining about the build time, back in 2010 it was probably worth building nuclear. That’s no longer the case and the fact that people (imo incorrectly) used this criticism in 2010 doesn’t mean that it’s invalid now in the mid 2020s.

  Disasters is an interesting perspective to take and to be honest I haven’t really thought much about it before. You have, however, picked a very specific and unlikely event here and I’m wondering why you went with that. There are a great many potential disasters that can impact a power grid from earthquakes, extreme weather and even deliberate attacks or acts of sabotage. I think for most of these, having a more distributed grid is likely more resilient and these are much more realistic scenarios than a civilization ending level event like you described.

  At the end of the day, we need to decarbonise immediately using the whatever technology is at hand. My criticism of nuclear is that it’s no longer the cheapest or fastest way to achieve that, but I’m open to being wrong. Your disaster scenario wasn’t particularly convincing though at least for me.

  source

  • The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    For my comment specifically I’m not worried about the economy, but the unit cost of energy. Simply put if nuclear has a higher unit cost that means we can’t replace as much fossil fuel generation vs other lower unit cost sources of energy for the same price.

    I’ll put it another way so you might better understand my point: what would you have said 10 or 15 years ago when someone mentions that solar is a bad idea because it would cost more? Because up until recently they did cost more, and people did use it as an argument against it. And now your (and other people’s) main criticism of nuclear is that it’s not as cheap as an energy source that we’ve been heavily investing into for a decade.

    You have, however, picked a very specific and unlikely event here

    I showed several examples. The ones you mentioned, such as earthquakes, are not likely to affect one source more than another, but events which block out the sun obviously disproportionately affect the production of solar energy.

    it’s no longer the cheapest or fastest way to achieve that

    Neither was solar when we started to invest in it, as I mentioned earlier. That came from improving and investing in the technology - which also bumped solar into the safest energy source, right after nuclear, which used to be the safest.

    source

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here to be honest. When nuclear was the fastest, cheapest option we should have been deploying that. Now that it’s not, we should still be deploying the fastest cheapest thing. Solar, wind and batteries continue to be on a rapidly declining cost curve, even back in 2010 but it was still too early to roll them out at huge scale. It’s unlikely nuclear will be catching up any time soon barring major breakthroughs like fusion.

      I also strongly disagree with your statement that disasters would impact nuclear and renewables equally. One of these things is certainly much harder to clean up and recover than the other if there is significant damage from an environmental disaster.

      We should be rolling out the best available technology at the current time and continuing to improve our generation technologies, including nuclear, as we always do. I’m not sure why we would do anything else.

      source

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think I understand what he is getting at.

        Your argument is that we should build the fastest, cheapest option.

        Up until recently, fossil fuels were the fastest, cheapest option. He is getting at the point that by your logic, we never should have moved off of coal and gas and started investing in solar because it wasn’t fast and cheap.

        People didn’t follow your logic and instead heavily invested in solar and wind until it actually became the fastest, cheapest option that it is today.

        Nuclear could have a similar rise in fiscal efficiency if we invested in it.

        But his original point is that you are focusing on “the fastest and cheapest” (i.e. what is best for “the economy”) which is the entire reason we are in this mess to begin with, because everyone wanted what was best for “the economy” and always kept the profitability of the energy companies as a high priority. This is the same thing you are repeating now.

        We should not care what is the fastest and cheapest. We should be spending a metric fuck ton of all of our collective money to switch 100% over to green energy both in nuclear AND renewables . The worst thing that will happen with that plan is we overbuild and energy becomes very cheap and energy companies don’t get their precious profits. Again, “oh no the economy.” Nationalize energy. It doesn’t need to make a great profit, it needs to be severely regulated and it is a basic human utility in the modern day.

        As for nuclear disasters, I would watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzfpyo-q-RM&t=545s How many nuclear disasters has France had who has run on 70-90% nuclear power for many decades? As for spent nuclear fuel, spent coal ash is literally radioactive for longer than spent nuclear fuel and per unit energy it produces more radioactive waste and we have no qualms about that. scientificamerican.com/…/coal-ash-is-more-radioac… www.youtube.com/shorts/Kn2l3MoisDs We don’t even test for radioactivity around the extreme majority of coal plants in the world.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• MonkderDritte@feddit.de ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  What happens in case of a sudden abnormal weather event that blocks out most of the sunlight

  The neighbor has sun then. Rent it there.

  source

  • shottymcb@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Australia doesn’t have neighbors…

    source
• threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth

  We now have the technology to alter the trajectories of asteroids, and have a fairly comprehensive catalogue of the big ones. I don’t expect this to be an issue.

  source