'Cracking under pressure ... The crisis is far from over.'

@dorfman_p Nuclear remains cheap, with a minimal footprint on the environment and natural resources, and is the perfect backup for renewables, instead of coal.

@IngersolRobert @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p The goal is not nuclear to “back up” wind and solar. Then goal is to just build nuclear and be done with it and stop making it so complicated.

@FissionPhil @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p Whose goal is that? I looked into putting a reactor in my basement, but ended up going with solar on the roof. Much simpler. Australia adding 35% wind and solar in the time it takes France to build one reactor. Much simpler.

@IngersolRobert @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p Why would SA invest in nuclear when they have spent $Billions on W&S? The smart thing to do is have Victoria install nuclear and SA can continue to import from them to maintain a stable grid! SA can then avoid the steep cost of synthetic inertia and expensive storage.

@johnson_wrjohn1 @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p In 2007, AU was 0% W+S. Last year, 28%. By 2024, 35%. In 2007, FR started building Flammanville. Last year they were still building Flammanville. They will still be building Flammanville in 2024. FR has 50 years experience with nuclear. AU has none. Why would they start now?

@IngersolRobert @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p Why bother? Just do it all with reactors and quit relying on the whims of nature.

@IngersolRobert @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p

@IngersolRobert @Antares55620255 @dorfman_p You don't. You leave them on and export the excess accross Europe for low prices or use it to produce cheap hydrogen, biogas etc.

@IngersolRobert @dorfman_p run a few reactors to match the purple and use the excess to produce synthetic fuels. That way you turn the volatility of wind and solar into an opportunity. I see no carbon neutral alternatives.