>It's cheaper to produce electricity from renewables than new nuclear power stations.
Yeah if you look at it from a
"its standing there costing nothing right now producing energy"
perspective.
If you consider whole life cycle, not really. You cannot justify that position with numbers.
Even assuming that turbines can operate at 33% rated capacity constantly (they can't) you'd still need 60 odd thousand turbines at a cost of 3 million a pop, replaced every 10 odd years plus other maintenance just to meet current demand.
Don't forget the manufacture and transporting of all that infrastructure also takes energy and materials... and recycling... So we need even more to meet energy demand.
>It's not popular with majority of people, political parties won't touch it. Why are we making decisions based on popularity and not actual rational debate. So silly.
>In other countries maybe new stations will be built - no chance in Oz No, we probably won't have electricity, because there's no way we can afford to build a distributed power network of tens of thousands of turbines, batteries and solar panels, and replace it all every 10 odd years.
