this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
179 points (83.8% liked)

Not The Onion

12368 readers
365 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world 150 points 8 months 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.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 104 points 8 months 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

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 50 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Mango@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

That’s how we got Chernobyl, and part of why Fukushima melted (because the backup generation was under the tsunami).

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 30 points 8 months 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.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's free real estate ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months 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?

[–] pizzazz@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Because solar panel efficiency is already pretty low so it's best to put them in the areas and in the orientation in which they will receive the most light

[–] BadlyDrawnRhino@aussie.zone 10 points 8 months 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.