As humanity needs more and more and more energy renewables (even destroying all our usable land) won’t be enough.
I’m pretty sure the ICCC disagrees with that
Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day agoFact: 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.
Lemmchen@feddit.org 1 day ago
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day 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 1 day 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 30% renewable generation. I fear to think what would become of this land if it was a 100%
You really need to stop following political dogmas, and start thinking.
fern@lemmy.autism.place 1 day ago
Can you reply to the other points too? Also, could you link that source, it’s very intriguing
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day 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 - 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
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 day 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.
Valmond@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Where is this study you talk about?”
OP: Waves vaguely towards wikipedia “Educate yourself!”
conartistpanda@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Makes a point
Blocks him
fern@lemmy.autism.place 1 day ago
I was asking for a direct link because I don’t have good stable internet right now and sifting through documents is incredibly slow. Here is a link to his post you can view in a private window.