Both provide power but only 1 provides 99.9% (or there abouts) reliable uptime. Both base load (constant up time) and wind/solar are required and have their place.
No base load is required if there is sufficient storage capacity. It is possible to get there without nuclear and seeing as nuclear is hideously expensive and we’ve left it far to late for nuclear to be part of the equation we should just get on with what needs to be done.
There is a shite load of work to do and a lot of nuance in how it happens but if the right (technical) people are allowed to do their jobs and politicians stay out of it (or follow the advice from the right people) we should get there.
https://aemo.com.au/energy-systems/major-publications/renewable-integration-study-ris
On this one I'm with you. I don't see you spreading fear. Just mis-information and ill conceived ideas.
So what have I said about nuclear power that’s incorrect or misinformation? It is hideously expensive and we’ve left it far too late to make it part of our toolkit to get to net zero by 2050.
Yes we have. Just because something exists in a place you don't particularly like doesn't mean it ceases to be. I have nfi where you got the notion anybody was suggesting we fundamentally change our system of government. I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion.
The point is that SMRs aren’t a viable option when the only countries producing them are countries we would never import an SMR from.
For all intents and purposes they don’t exist in a way that we can actually use them, yet certain sectors of the media are portraying that SMRs are a viable option in the hear and now, which is disingenuous.
Importing SMRs from either Russia or China would be about as likely as us changing our system of government to theirs so the whole SMR discussion is a non starter and shouldn’t even be a discussion point until one is actually commercially available in the west to buy and use.
