• ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    And in those 6 years, you could have built over 6x that capacity in renewables, easy.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Sure, but the other commenter conveniently forgot that that’s the case for nuclear as well

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You could, but with that colossal amount of resources you could have built 12x in renewables, probably more because of economy of scale.

        And if you decide to commit all those resources to renewables, you probably just created a booming local industry of well paying jobs.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          But then you still haven’t solved any of the issues with renewables (at least solar and wind); The amount of space they take up, their inconsistent power output and power grids which haven’t been designed for them.