▲ 1147 ▼ Solar Panels Are Now Producing So Much Power That They’re Leaving Nuclear Plants in the Dust: "Solar is now the engine of the power transition." (futurism.com) submitted 1 week ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 411 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago* (7 children) Yes, so nuclear uses 100 times less land for the same energy. The unit is hectares per TWh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 week ago (3 children) The United States could meet its entire electricity demand just by putting solar panels on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. The land argument is beyond grasping at straws. The last refuge of the incompetent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) this is true. I'm not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i'm for solar. however, i'm also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don't have to debase nuclear for solar permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby? Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It's utterly irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) what is your standard of evidence? you've moved the goalposts three times now. first it was "define efficiency", then "by the definition solar is better", and now this which i still don't understand permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago what does this even mean permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago* (7 children) Yes, so nuclear uses 100 times less land for the same energy. The unit is hectares per TWh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 week ago (3 children) The United States could meet its entire electricity demand just by putting solar panels on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. The land argument is beyond grasping at straws. The last refuge of the incompetent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) this is true. I'm not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i'm for solar. however, i'm also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don't have to debase nuclear for solar permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby? Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It's utterly irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) what is your standard of evidence? you've moved the goalposts three times now. first it was "define efficiency", then "by the definition solar is better", and now this which i still don't understand permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago what does this even mean permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 week ago (3 children) The United States could meet its entire electricity demand just by putting solar panels on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. The land argument is beyond grasping at straws. The last refuge of the incompetent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) this is true. I'm not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i'm for solar. however, i'm also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don't have to debase nuclear for solar permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby? Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It's utterly irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (2 children) this is true. I'm not saying that we should stop efforts to install solar to install nuclear instead. as you say replacing the 12 million ha of corn ethanol with solar would produce nearly three times the US demand of 4200 TWh/y (with the averages from the chart above, you have 12 million/1000=12000) i'm for solar. however, i'm also saying that the us could meet nearly 300 times its entire electricity demand just by putting nuclear reactors on the land we currently waste growing corn ethanol. we don't have to debase nuclear for solar permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby? Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It's utterly irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent
[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 week ago (1 child) Do you just burn piles of money for fun? Is that your hobby? Who gives a crap what the maximal power output per land area is? It's utterly irrelevant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago for one thing, it's exactly what your argument about corn ethanol is permalink fedilink source parent
[+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) what is your standard of evidence? you've moved the goalposts three times now. first it was "define efficiency", then "by the definition solar is better", and now this which i still don't understand permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago what does this even mean permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) what is your standard of evidence? you've moved the goalposts three times now. first it was "define efficiency", then "by the definition solar is better", and now this which i still don't understand permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago I have been searching and providing you with sources. Give me a source that compares any of these other definitions of energy I haven't yet covered between nuclear and solar. Per land is the only one widely accepted and what an expert will assume the title says. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 1 week ago what does this even mean permalink fedilink source parent