• Rooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Greenies:Stop oil now!

    Also greenies: *obstructs nuclear power for 60+ years. *

    Please stop pretending we can run society on wind and solar.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can run society on wind and solar, and it’s looking more and more of a certainty that the price of the alternatives will bankrupt all of them.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can. With nuclear as the baseline. Infinitely (not literally) more clean than fossil fuels and way, WAY more safe even including Chornobyl in the stats.

      • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you literally can’t. Energy demands are only going to increase. The energy output for the land required, for a nuclear plant, is far better overall compared to the area required for wind and solar to match it.

        • vrojak@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The area required for enough wind and solar is still small enough to not be an issue. That nuclear needs less space per amount of energy produced does not matter

          • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Any space saved is space for untouched environment, which is more beneficial to the planet. You’re using Chinese logic, which lead to mountains blanketed with solar panels. There will be consequences for such decisions down the road.

            • vrojak@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The space saved is so miniscule compared to theobvious benefits (way cheaper, quicker and easier construction than nuclear, no problem with long term storage of waste products) that it is an absolute no brainer. Also, it’s not like windparks are on fields of asphalt.

              • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Absolutely not. 100+ acres vs 3,000+ acres is anything but miniscule. I suggest you do a little research on the discussion you’re attempting to take part in.

                • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  See, you’re talking like 3000+ acres is a lot on the global scale, and it just isn’t. You could literally cover a few fields that grow better in indirect light, produce more from your crops, and supply the global requirements for electricity. Seriously, just 5 square miles is over 3000 acres.

                  The only good argument against solar or wind is matching load against production, and that one is becoming less relevant all the time.

                  • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Compared to a hundred acres? Meaning the other 2,900 acres could be preserved in some form of natural state? That absolutely is a lot when you consider the energy needs of a modern country. The fact you’re acting like that’s not a valid argument just proves how ignorant you are.

                    Growing crops under a solar array does not justify your inability to comprehend land size/use. Corn? Fine, that works with indirect. Soy and rice do not though. So 2 of the 3 most widely grown crops would be hindered by that plan.

                    So instead of destroying major crops with the ridiculous idea of building thousands of acres of solar panels, or tens of thousands of acres of wind turbines, we should focus on the much smaller impact of nuclear energy.

        • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nuclear power is good and all, but there’s only so much Uranium on this planet to satisfy the energy demand of ~8000000000 people…