Coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar all have trade-offs. The real challenge is building an energy system that keeps the lights on and the economy alive.
Excellent article, as I commented earlier when it was in The Australian. However, the discussion is never complete unless the nuclear option is addressed as well. We have abundant uranium reserves, and we have the technical expertise to do it, plus we have arguably the world's most stable geology in northern SA for storage of nuclear waste. We already sell yellowcake to the world; we should also be using it ourselves, to provide long-term stable baseload power.
To a point that is true, but nuclear very clean and very stable and plant can last for 70+ years. Coal fired powerplants stuffed by 50 years. that's how governments like the previous SA Labor government got away with dynamiting old coal fired plants - they were obsolete.
They should have build new ones, and they last longer if they are well maintained. You will be surprised how long the current coalers will last now we know they are indispensible!
Thanks. Always enjoy the personal memories preceding the analysis. There seems to be a real problem in this debate because there is no debate. The next COP should be interesting in terms of the impact of economic hard times and how much cognitive dissonance is revealed. .
"We should reduce emissions where we can, as fast as we sensibly can, within the limits imposed by physics, engineering and economics, not driven by slogans such as net zero."
Excellent article, as I commented earlier when it was in The Australian. However, the discussion is never complete unless the nuclear option is addressed as well. We have abundant uranium reserves, and we have the technical expertise to do it, plus we have arguably the world's most stable geology in northern SA for storage of nuclear waste. We already sell yellowcake to the world; we should also be using it ourselves, to provide long-term stable baseload power.
Why do we need nooclear energy .....more coal and gas than we can use!
Oh, and by the way, France for example gets 70% of its power from nuclear.
To a point that is true, but nuclear very clean and very stable and plant can last for 70+ years. Coal fired powerplants stuffed by 50 years. that's how governments like the previous SA Labor government got away with dynamiting old coal fired plants - they were obsolete.
They should have build new ones, and they last longer if they are well maintained. You will be surprised how long the current coalers will last now we know they are indispensible!
Can't disagree with that!
Far too sensible. No, it’s far better to spend 40bn on a pumped hydro scheme. Govt knows what’s best for us.
What is going to keep the lights on for the next decade or two until nuclear is legal and operating?
Thanks. Always enjoy the personal memories preceding the analysis. There seems to be a real problem in this debate because there is no debate. The next COP should be interesting in terms of the impact of economic hard times and how much cognitive dissonance is revealed. .
Far too simple for the robber barons Chris.
Apply Occam's Razor
"We should reduce emissions where we can, as fast as we sensibly can, within the limits imposed by physics, engineering and economics, not driven by slogans such as net zero."
Why....
You either believe the crap or you don't
Typical of the liberals.. a foot in both camps
Go ON!