If I can’t share a Curly Wurly then it’s not a revolution.

  • 5 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: February 1st, 2023
  • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.nettoTechnology@lemmy.world•World's largest sodium-ion battery goes into operation - Energy StorageEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    Well it’s not really an either/or situation. The current Labor government’s plan is a combination of majority renewables with gas and hydrogen. They are also running coal at the moment but have no plans to renew those plants during the transition. They’ve signed on to emissions reductions of 75% by 2035.

    So you’ve got one plan which has some reduction targets (probably not steep enough) planned transition, costed and budgeted that doesn’t require more coal, and one plan which will pull funding from renewables, and requires more coal until some time as which they can get nuclear approved, built and commercialised.

  • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.nettoTechnology@lemmy.world•World's largest sodium-ion battery goes into operation - Energy StorageEnglish
    1·
    5 months ago

    Context is important here. The conversation here was about Australia’s nuclear capacity. A country where nuclear power is banned at both state and federal levels. Where the plan for it’s use is currently uncosted, the planned sites have been selected without environmental protection studies and several of which are supposed to be SMRs.

    Would you build a bleeding edge nuclear reactor without a legal framework to govern its construction or operation? Without a workforce trained in its functions? Without considering the environmental factors of its geography? Without considering the cost?

    Probably not. But that’s the current plan put forward by the reactionary right in Australia and this from a party who doesn’t believe in climate change, have no emissions targets, and whose whole plan is to continue to run and build coal power until whatever time they work out the details on nuclear.