You're viewing a single thread.
I expect debates, hm Interesting this got this much upvotes
But also why no one talked about land usage
No one talks about land usage for solar either. Which is a real shame, because with some relatively minor redesigns solar plants can be integrated into the ecosystem without causing massive damage, instead of what usually happens which is just clear-cutting a huge field and destroying any plant and animal life there.
Nuclear plants also have to built adjacent to reliable water supply. I'll bet the land is more expensive and a bigger environmental impact whereas the location for solar is more flexible
Still far less than solar or wind for kW/acre
I mean, the single biggest issue with solar is its land usage. Wind is much better with this.
Plus the batteries. Batteries are expensive and we need way more that can store more and charge/discharge at faster rates.
Imo batteries are like this since battery companies are quite greedy. They want some big cut out of the cost.
What you think you can just reply to me with reasonable statements I can't disagree with? How dare you!
The USA specifically has so much useless land with minimal ecological value, that if an energy project could actually be done at a federal level we could probably not have to worry about it.
There is a whole bunch of land in central USA that is not especially unique or teaming with life, slap down a big renewable energy farm.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t know shit about ecology
It should be enough to convert every third golf course to a solar plant.
That's fair. But lesser of evils, yanno.
Well, I mean I was not thinking about USA..