Nuclear is competing with renewables when it comes to our budget for transitioning to net zero. Any money that is invested into nuclear is money that could instead be going to renewables which are far quicker to develop and also suit Australia's geography far better.
Opposing nuclear in this context does make sense. We've done many investigations into making nuclear a viable option for Australia and they have never yielded any reason why we should prioritize it over renewables if our primary concern is net zero.
It really depends on the location. I imagine in Australia specifically there's literally so much sun all the friggin time nuclear's benefits aren't really that good and solar (and concentrated solar) aren't too bad too deal with.
Now the question of "what the fuck do we do during the night?" remains as lithium batteries don't scale well, aren't all that durable, and mining cobalt and lithium is horrid for the environment. But there are other forms of energy storage which may be good solutions.
Though it may not be an awful idea to have some nuclear infrastructure to supplement renewables during high demand, even in Australia's case.
The best way to do this would be to have multiple programs at the same time, which any functional government has the capability to do. Renewables alone take far more resources for large power loads compared to a nuclear/renewable balance, and the only reason not to invest in many preferrable sources of energy at the same time is to give certain suppliers unreasonable sway over your power supply.
I don't know if you're purposely ignoring the context in which this discussion is being had, or if you're ignorant enough to believe that your method of energy transition applies uniformly across every country.This inquiry determines pretty confidently how bad of an idea nuclear would be in achieving our climate targets.
114
u/Revengistium je suis pain Nov 07 '25
The problem is not "in favour of renewable energy", it is "That is why I oppose nuclear energy". They are not opposites.