Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

No-Passenger2662 t1_j69rtld wrote

Can you imagine if we'd spent $7 trillion on this instead of invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

21

bigbobbus t1_j6bb07y wrote

“Freedom” look at them now hardly anything free about them

3

[deleted] t1_j69be3t wrote

[deleted]

13

erosram t1_j6eaa38 wrote

Renewables seems to have won out, because of the price, flexibility, and safety. All it needs now, is time, and more innovation. It seems like it will eventually take over all of our energy needs.

At least we won’t have to worry about storing nuclear waste.

0

Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j6a69vv wrote

Orrrr less money and time could be spent overall and the wide variety of sources that can be built should be built and will cover baseload requirements.

When the other option is to spend a decade waiting for heavy manufacturing infrastructure to be expanded for nuclear components then still not produce or assemble enough parts by 2050 to replace the coal plants in America and have wasted 30 years waiting for nuclear instead of building fast cheap renewables, nuclear very quickly becomes a worthless choice

https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf

−5

[deleted] t1_j6aj3fb wrote

[deleted]

4

Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j6anfwr wrote

Speaking of scale and viability, let me know when there’s enough manufacturing for nuclear power components to replace all the plants being closed this decade from age 😊 then let me when when there’s enough for a net increase 😊

Because until then they’re still closing nuclear plants faster then they’re building them

−1

daniel_bran t1_j6bktod wrote

How about upgrading those 1000 yr old electric poles that are barely standing but powering all homes? Just a thought 💭

1

spamholderman t1_j6e1mtu wrote

Not enough money

> When it comes to clean energy investment share by country, China takes the lead. The largest emitter got almost half of the global total investment in low-carbon energy transition, bagging $546 billion.

>The U.S. took the second slot with $141 billion while Germany secured the 3rd place, again. France took over the UK’s previous 4th slot as the latter fell down to 5th place.

1

brian_thompsan t1_j6gx6wy wrote

When it comes to building a sustainable economy that doesn't rely on fossil fuels, California is out in front. One firm that is crucial in this effort is FEAM due to the mining of its boron resource, which is needed in the development of renewable energy technologies.

1

BrotherAdultMan t1_j6c9bvf wrote

As long as “Renewable energy” isn’t seeing a massive increase this entire thing is pointless. Oh so you have an electric car running on the energy generated from burning coal?

−2

erosram t1_j6eat2w wrote

If you took a gas powered vehicle, and an electric vehicle, and traveled the same distance, the EV will pollute less, even if all of its electricity came from coal. Because EVs are so much more efficient. They just use less energy period. That’s why their energy ratings are like 120 mpg.

1