The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There’s also a fuckton of gold in the ocean, just waiting for someone to figure out how to filter the entire ocean and pull out the individual atoms. All at a profitable price point.

      Same with uranium. Which means it’ll never happen.

      We will have cracked fusion, mined the far side of the moon for helium3 and brought it back to terra before we crack that nut

      For context; we’ve only mined ~200k tonnes of gold historically with an estimate ~50k tonnes left. The ocean holds 20milion tonnes, worth over $770Trillion and it’s not cost effective to get it out.

    • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      The environmental damage you will cause by digging shit up from the oceans, if that’s even possible, will be insane. Absolutely insane, completely bonkers, but it does prove once again that nuclear fanbois don’t give a rat’s arse about the environment.

          • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            How did you get that conclusion from the article you linked? The article talks about a material that can recover 6.63 mg/g per week of uranium from seawater, so a ton of it would produce just over 10lbs/week. If you produce a large enough amount of that material and put it to work it will add up to a useful amount of uranium in a short amount of time.