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.

  • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 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.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Literally no sun for years would mean no crops which means everyone and all their animals would be dead

          • gazter
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ultimately good for the environment, though.

            • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              How do you determine what is good or bad for the environment?

              The environment is just the result of many interactive factors. People need to reverse the perspective and ask is the environment good for us?

              • gazter
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                It was more of a lighthearted, fun joke about how I think that humans dying out works be a good thing for biodiversity, on balance.