all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 150 points 2 years ago (2 children)

That headline is a bait and switch.

One of the major nuclear research facilities belonging to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO)’s is installing a major rooftop solar system that will save $2 million.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    To be honest even if it was a power plant... they're already in the business of generating power. If generating more clean power in the same space is an option, that sounds great

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Power plants still need power to operate and even your own supply is not free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    Yeah, and nuclear reactors use a lot of electrical power anyway. When they're first starting they need to draw a lot from the grid and they all have powerful backup generators and battery banks to keep the systems online in the event they need to suddenly shutdown the reactor.

    The implausible thing would actually be getting approval to put the panels up, since reactors have high standards for checking the consequences of different materials being used on-site.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Although, why the fuck are we not plastering those giant nuclear vent thingies (the technical term) with solar panels? Or really any surface that can support them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    At least here in Australia, we believe in the right for a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of coal mining, and renewable energy threatens that right.

    Now that the world is turning away from coal as much as possible, we're now pivoting to allow a select group of billionaires to make money off the land in the form of uranium mining, and renewable energy also threatens that.

  • source
  • parent
  • It sounds very dangerous to have a solar system that close to a nuclear facility, much less that close to Earth.

  • source
  • [+] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Because you can't have two different sources of energy! It's antithetical to existence! Only one thing can ever exist or chaos reigns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    In bavaria they made exactly this. You have a "Vorzugsgebiet" (loosely translated area of favourited power accumulation) for either wind or solar. Some people then had the outrageous idea of setting up a wind turbine in the middle of a solar park. Guess what happened? It wasn't approved because it was only allowed to build a solar park there. You can't make this stuff up. That's German bureaucracy for you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Australia doesn't have any nuclear power plants.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So, what are they doing in their nucular facility! Sounds very suspicious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    I actually stand corrected as it looks like ANSTO has a research reactor capable of producing in the megawatt range.

    The facility seems to mostly do technologies and medical research, but also prepares uranium for export. Australia has a fair amount of uranium.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They’re in Australia, they’re obviously already connected to the electrical grid, and have the free space. I don’t really see how taking advantage of an obviously free win is in any way a “sick burn” of nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments