Anyone using AI tools should assume that at least 20% of what it produces will be wrong: Missing details, inventing things, basic mistakes.
Use AI if being 80% right quickly is fine. Otherwise if you have to do the analysis anyway because accuracy is critical, there's little point to the AI - its too unreliable.
If we had the renewables to replace the coal politicians would love it to retire in a heartbeat. The reason it’s sticking it around longer is because politicians fear the backlash from blackouts and high prices more than the backlash from the bad PR of delaying closures of coal.
When Tassie dams get low, they import power from the mainland. It’s a common seasonal thing. Drought + Basslink outage had the gov buying and running diesel gen at huge cost to keep the grid running. The Basslink outage made a problem a crisis.
You also have to factor in how terrible post-doc pay and job security is, just to have a shot at getting on the tenure track. In the US it's half of that 80k number in bio research.
The issue is how many researchers want to spend their time replicating the research of other people rather than doing their own original work. Getting funding is already incredibly hard, plus no-one is going to give you tenure or promote you for replicating the work of others.