Dies ist das nationale Projekt, das Mark Carney hätte wählen sollen
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/this-is-the-national-project-mark-carney-should-have-chosen/article_3ffd548b-de82-42fc-b98c-2278de8f33a2.html
Dies ist das nationale Projekt, das Mark Carney hätte wählen sollen
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/this-is-the-national-project-mark-carney-should-have-chosen/article_3ffd548b-de82-42fc-b98c-2278de8f33a2.html
3 Kommentare
They didn’t even give an example of the project they want on the list.
I guess government paying all the wages would make them cheaper.
This article doesn’t include anything.
It mostly complains about fossil fuels (fair point) and the cost of nuclear power (not that relevant if you consider the up-front of an hydro dam).
So what is this article actually proposing as project? I give this article a C minus.
The Star often has misleading and misinformed articles, and this is another one to be added to that list. Solar and Wind are indeed much cheaper to install compared to a nuclear power plant. But this evaluation often misses the huge integration costs for solar and wind. The more solar and wind you add to your grid the higher the integration costs as you’ll have to deal with the instability of solar and wind via really expensive battery storage or other means. Furthermore when evaluating solar and wind many cost comparisons are based on the most advantageous locations, however the more solar and wind you add, the more you have to compromise and find less advantageous locations which thus erodes performance. This make nuclear still a very competitive option, especially when you talking about extensions of existing nuclear power plants.