• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Fact: renewables take more land, that could be used for other purposes.

    Fact: renewables by themselves cannot, and I mean CANNOT, be used alone. Unless you are willing to have a ridiculous over-provision. They depend on weather and have massive seasonal divergences. You need a base line power production to have a rational generation scheme.

    Fact: nuclear have a higher cap for total production than renewables. As humanity needs more and more and more energy renewables (even destroying all our usable land) won’t be enough.

    Fact: no everyone that doesn’t share your opinion is an “astrosuftist lobby” some of us can also think by ourselves. And some of us can ever think above the dogma of our political school of choice.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      if 15% of the land used for parking spaces in the USA was instead used for renewables, that would generate enough electricity to power the whole country.

      a report from the IEA showed that renewables CAN, and I mean CAN fully power the entire world. So take that one up with the experts. thanks!

      nice brainwashing though!

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Do you have the calculations for thar 15%? I’d love to fact check it.

        Quick search didn’t found me that report from the iae. You should probably pass me a link so I can fact check it too.

        My country is not the USA, we do not have those ridiculous parking places that you guys have. Still renewables takes a ridiculous amount of space. I shall now as the land where I grew up is totally changed due wind power installations. And we are at 50% renewable generation. I fear to think what would become of this land if it was a 100% (that would probably need to be not double the land but 3-4 or more times the land if we want to cover energy usage during not windy months)

        I really think that the sweet spot would be about 30-40 nuclear and 70-60 renewables.

        You really need to stop following political dogmas, and start thinking.

        • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I can’t, sorry - I blocked him for being a pro-nuclear shill. Rather than link to a specific study, because there are dozens at this point, I’ll instead just link you to a Wikipedia article that has plenty of references for you to explore - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

          If you want to find studies, you can find them - there are actually quite a lot of 100% renewable energy feasibility studies that all seem to come to the conclusion that 100% renewable energy economy is completely achievable and viable with current technology. Many of them consider nuclear power to be a fossil fuel.

          Ask a pro-nuclear guy to provide any source that doesn’t come from somewhere funded by the nuclear lobby and watch as they flail around ineffectually and then link you to some pro-nuclear lobby group anyways. It’s quite funny

          • Valmond@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            “Where is this study you talk about?”

            OP: Waves vaguely towards wikipedia “Educate yourself!”

          • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 hours ago

            The guy replied with reasonable arguments. You just don’t want to entertain that nuclear might have a place in some countries. Apparently wanting nuclear to make up less than half of energy generation is called being a shill.

            Nuclear power is also not a fossil fuel. That’s ridiculous. It comes from elements naturally found on earth that are the product of nuclear fusion reactions in supernova. Not the result of plant matter decaying underground.

            Do you not think there are pro-renewable lobbies too? There are lobbies for all power sources including fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables. Can you link anything that doesn’t come from a pro-renewable lobby.