KEN-JENNINGS wrote:it's actually a statement, not an argument.
It is an argument, its not as if you'd personally have to deal with either so its a hypothetical argument.
"I'd rather cut a tumour out of a lung than try to transplant a liver, so I think people should smoke instead of drink, but I'm not a doctor so I won't be doing either, doctors will have to do it" I don't even know what you're trying to construct here.
I would rather not deal with either - nuclear is an expedient solution to a problem that already has a better solution. We should focus on renewables and forms of energy with less environmental impact.
Whats the better solution? There is no better non-carbon solution to base-load power production.
Coal is unfortunately the cheapest and most reliable bas-load solution, gas the most flexible for plugging gaps in renewable generation, hydro is good if its available which for most countries it isn't on the scale needed if at all.
convince me base load power plants are an absolute necessity.
You want power when you want it, unless you're comfortable with not using your lights at night and not using your AC when its hot and windless. Without storage you need base-load power plants.
That's the key basically, until we have high-capacity storage, to supply power for say a week, then we need base load power plants.
Australia could go zero emissions relatively easily, there are some good reports here.http://bze.org.au/
Energy storage is basically the key, plus a solid long-distance distribution system.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2017-03-01 13:09:23)