5 ms·
True if You presume new constructions to be done on empty (farm)land. Somewhat less true if You take into account that specifically solar can (and often is) co
by MezzoDelCammin 4y ago
True if You presume new constructions to be done on empty (farm)land.
Somewhat less true if You take into account that specifically solar can (and often is) constructed on residential / industrial rooftops.
- bigfudge 4y agoAlso onshore wind entirely compatible with most farming. Offshore wind makes land use mostly irrelevant.
- seanmcdirmid 4y agoYou still have to build it out over a large area, even if you can use it for other things or the land doesn’t have any other productive uses. You’ll never power an aircraft carrier or submarine with it, and even space craft solar collectors pale in power output and longevity to nuclear solutions.
- MezzoDelCammin 4y agoI don't think anyone here says that nuclear should be completely eradicated. Sure, there are valid use cases. What I was trying to touch is the argument about land use. I don't want to stereotype, but oftentimes these things are a product of simple "back of the envelope" calculations where someone takes surface of one panel per Watt and tries to calculate how big of an area would You need to replace N nuclear reactors of given power. Not the first time I saw it. It's a sort of a theme I see in discussions around me with people from STEM over 50 (not saying that's You, it's just where I keep hearing it). Nuclear made a lot of sense in the 60s-70s, sure. But since maybe 20 years or so the alternatives are getting better / cheaper / generally improving way faster than nuclear currently is. And so is the energy grid. Makes sense to update those arguments then.