3 ms·
>dying due to the high cost But if you want to fight climate change, surely any cost is worth it? Otherwise you're not serious about it. Subsidize it, do whate
by Grue3 7y ago
>dying due to the high cost
But if you want to fight climate change, surely any cost is worth it? Otherwise you're not serious about it. Subsidize it, do whatever it takes to save the planet. Renewables are a false solution, they're quicker to build but cannot produce energy reliably, need to be replaced often, take too much space etc. If they could replace coal, surely Germany would've done so already.
- mantap 7y agoNobody needs to use coal. Gas turbines are better in every way. Germany's addiction to coal is political not technological. Renewables are part of the solutions but what makes up the rest will depend on where you live. The solution for Sweden won't be the same as the solution for Hawaii. It's hard to talk generally on the internet about this because it only makes sense to discuss power generation in a particular place.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoSo we're not allowed to criticize nuclear due to it's cost, but you're allowed to dismiss renewables because of their cost?
- Grue3 7y agoWhere did I dismiss renewables due to cost? I'm dismissing them due to inconvenience. For example consider how many solar panels need to be installed to replace a nuclear station, how much area will they cover, how many of them will need to be replaced every day, how a few non-sunny days in a row would render it useless, etc.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoNothing is "inconvenient" for a corporation. All "inconvenient" means is that they have to pay people to do it or put up with it. IOW, a cost.