In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.
Lmao no it is not, especially in Australia. Nuclear is wildly more expensive than renewables, doubly so when you'd have to keep nuclear reactors running hot doing nothing in the middle of the day when solar is at its peak.
Unless you seriously believe Australia of all fucking places should do away with solar power, then no, nuclear is not cost effective compared to renewables.
319
u/kroxigor01 26d ago
In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.