Comment on “Energy in the Future”: a time capsule of energy concerns from 1953parentComments−lm284695yAnyone who argue against nuclear while failing to acknowledge the issues of solar and wind, which are 10 times more problematic, can't be truthful.Unless we enter a _major_ era of degrowth there is no way we'll get out of fossil fuels without nuclear.−aeternum5yWhat are the 10x more problematic issues with solar and wind?−kinjba115yBriefly: solar and wind energy requires sun or wind and tons of space relative to fossil/nuclear. Not every place has those."A reality check on renewables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o
Comments
Anyone who argue against nuclear while failing to acknowledge the issues of solar and wind, which are 10 times more problematic, can't be truthful.
Unless we enter a _major_ era of degrowth there is no way we'll get out of fossil fuels without nuclear.
What are the 10x more problematic issues with solar and wind?
Briefly: solar and wind energy requires sun or wind and tons of space relative to fossil/nuclear. Not every place has those.
"A reality check on renewables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0W1ZZYIV8o