• someacnt_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I expect debates, hm Interesting this got this much upvotes

    But also why no one talked about land usage

    • verdigris@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      No one talks about land usage for solar either. Which is a real shame, because with some relatively minor redesigns solar plants can be integrated into the ecosystem without causing massive damage, instead of what usually happens which is just clear-cutting a huge field and destroying any plant and animal life there.

      • Hikermick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Nuclear plants also have to built adjacent to reliable water supply. I’ll bet the land is more expensive and a bigger environmental impact whereas the location for solar is more flexible

        • Stowaway@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Plus the batteries. Batteries are expensive and we need way more that can store more and charge/discharge at faster rates.

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      The USA specifically has so much useless land with minimal ecological value, that if an energy project could actually be done at a federal level we could probably not have to worry about it.

      There is a whole bunch of land in central USA that is not especially unique or teaming with life, slap down a big renewable energy farm.