DerGottesknecht

Yeah, but enough to make a difference

Some of them might have wanted to vote but their votes were suppressed

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

Yeah, you’re lazy and wrong,

https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/6784/1/RR-03-05.pdf, Fig 8

Not using facts,

True

but using logic:

You mean pulling stuff out of your ass?

not just birds being killed or their migrations affected by disorientation,

Not true

but also seeds carried by wind

Wtf?

that a Chernobyl or two every decade is better

Wtf???

Start bringing some sources

Hydroelectric energy is worse than burning coal. It’s not being strict, it’s being adequate

[Citation required]

Housecats are a catastrophe, cars - not so much, agriculture - modern agriculture can have little impact for very good output.

All are way bigger than windturbines. And the biggest is habit loss, which is mainly driven by agriculture.

Yeah, not gonna write a big reply to this.

If your that strict, nothing is green. Its about minimizing the impact. And you forgot to mention the mining of uranium.

Wind energy impacts birds.

Please compare the impact to housecats, cars and agriculture.

But you always have a combination of several renewable sources which can power these countries.

this is not uncontested, plenty of people disagree

Yeah, i know. Time will tell.

we have been saying this for decades and I guarantee you we will still be saying in in another decade. Also, renewables aren’t fast to connect to the grid either. The more we spin up the bigger the backlog will be connecting new installations to the grid.

Sorry but that is just not true. The growth of solar has almost been logarithmic and the installed capacity was almost non-existent two decades ago. That just doesn’t compare to the snails pace of nuclear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

Also, it’s not about people, but money. Every euro spent on some tech bro nuclear startup could be used to install real capacity instead.

longer power lines means more efficiency losses, and the more you plan to roll out renewables to 100% the more inefficiencies there will be. as previously stated, connecting large brand new renewable installations to the grid is expensive and also takes a long time.

Yeah, theoretically true, but what distances are we talking about? To get electricity from the suburbs in the city center should be trivial. It gets more difficult if we have to cross countries, but high voltage DC solves that issue pretty well. We could power europe from solar installed in the Sahara ^^

Don’t forget hydro, look at Norway, it’s pretty far away from the equator but has almost 100% renewables. Island as well. There are suboptimal locations, but in the end there is no country which can’t use renewables for all electricity needs.

Supplying the current global electricity consumption with solar PV would imply covering 0.3% of the land area of the world (source)

All rooftops should be enough but parking lots and agrarsolar would be also solutions. So even if we only use solar (which we don’t ) it should be possible.

Renewables create a base load, the problem are demand peaks following overcast days. And there npps don’t help.

so would nuclear if we actually did it and improved regulatory inefficiencies

Maybe, but not fast enough. We need the power immediately and battery are already in the steep part of their growth phase. We can’t spend several decades learning how to do it right. Then we could also just wait for fusion.

land use isn’t an issue in rural places, but it absolutely is in more densely populated places near cities and datacenter hubs. The world is not homogenous.

Then we use power lines like we do already. Most power plants right now are also not in cities, so I don’t understand the argument. Would you also want to build the npps in/near cities?

But the technology requires this amount of bureaucracy, else you get big problems. I trust physics, but i don’t trust humans. Especially if they can get money by skimping on security. The risks with renawables (except dams) are way smaller.

Where do renewables not work? I’d say they work at even more places, because you don’t need such a developed infrastructure to set it up. Everyone can wire up a small solar farm after a few hours of YouTube, i wouldn’t trust myself with reactor maintenance.

Nuclear also needs storage for peaks. You don’t want to have to build enough nuclear for peak production which then gets shut down all the time, driving up your LCOE. You want your expensive plant to run all the time. Also you need storage if you have an unplanned maintenance, because then you lose a relevant percentage of production with little to no warning.

And storage is getting cheaper and better every year. The bigger issue would be a grid that can shovel power from one end of a continent to the other in case of adverse weather.

We need less space for solar to power the world than we use for golf courses right now, so I’d say landuse is a non issue. Because you can use roofs and such even less.

Renewables + Storage + Grid.

Yeah, I don’t think it’s good to sink so much money in this, we could build more renewables instead. But you’re right, we will see

But the issue is, it’s too expensive to build. And the small reactor startup project is also not producing power and seems to be built on hype

France auditors recently put out a report in which they criticized the high cost of their nuclear program and requested a moratorium for new projects in other countries.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/france-far-ready-build-six-new-nuclear-reactors-auditor-says-2025-01-14/

Just responding to your comment about english proficiency, you speak english because it’s the only language you know, we speak english because it’s the only language you know. So you might want to throw a little less shade here…

(Unless of course you also know a secondary language, then I’ll withdraw my comment)