Why not have both?
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Conversation
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
I guess it just seemed like you were arguing in a black and white way. The great advantage of renewables is the rapid pace of development and fast deployment time, but if you already have nuclear it seems to make sense to continue to support it.
1
It makes less sense in Australia for instance given the huge amount of investment we'd have to make to get started and the huge time it would take to get plants online. Better to invest in figuring out better storage for renewables.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Nuclear leads to much pain decades down the line in terms of plant decommissioning and waste management. I’d definitely take that over the climate crisis, but it would need a huge government push to fund. And if we were going to do it, we should have started 15 years ago.
1
Replying to
But at that time environmental and safety concerns were higher on the agenda. It seems like nuclear in Australia missed it’s chance. Probably because the world went down the line of unranium rather than thorium. 😕
Replying to
What gives me hope is the incredible speed of development of renewable energy. There’s far less development overhead in terms of necessary safety regulations, and so there’s a far lower barrier to entry for new companies. We do need to upgrade our energy grid, but that is doable.
1