Yeah, let's compare the market cap of nuclear companies and the market cap of Total and other "renewable + gaz!!!!11". > Facts and an interest in truly bringin

Yeah, let's compare the market cap of nuclear companies and the market cap of Total and other "renewable + gaz!!!!11". > Facts and an interest in truly bringing your country forward don't matter. Money and lobbyism is what rules the discussions. Well said! But i'm pretty sure not all greenpeace workers are shills for Total, some are genuine, accusing them of being shills is uncalled for and wrong. Some questions though: electricity is 25% of our energy usage right now, we need to elimitate 80% carbon emission before 2050, so we need to use Co2-free electricity for 80% of our usages, right? here is the cost to replace only our current electricity generation by only renewable: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261918312790 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191... The price does not account for land destruction and material rarefication btw, but let's consider those negligeable, and do some order of magnitude calculations. energy generationcapacity: 1.9TW needed, * 3.5 let's say 6TW. 200 GW of power transmission: 700 GW of power transmission. Biomass 8.5 EJ => ???? well, this is harder since biomass in those scenarii would be used as heating mostly, so not really helping a 80% electricity energy mix. Let's say 28 EJ but with the energy loss in carnot machines, i think it would rather be close to 40 EJ. Do we even have enough land to get to 16 EJ every year? I'm not sure, especially if we have to clear the land with electric tools. It seems reasonable to say that this won't happen. Ever.