you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)