Ignoring the rapidly changing battery chemistry is silly. Calling the concrete argument silly is silly.
Sorry, I talk about the technology as it is. Not as it might be. Maybe by 2030 we will have economic fusion power. That does not mean we should talk about today as if it is a reality.
As I said: plenty of concrete needed to install those big wind turbines. When you multiply that out by the huge number of turbines it takes to match the output of a nuclear plant you will find that the differentials in concrete needed are much smaller than you assume. On top of that you have the concrete needed for the natural gas plants needed to provide backup to the wind power which would likely eliminate any differential left.
The fact that you jumped on the concrete argument without taking the time to think about how much concrete is really needed for alternatives is what makes it silly. It makes it seem like you looking for excuses to dismiss nuclear power rather than acknowledging that it is best solution currently available if reducing CO2 emissions is an objective.
Home
Contact
Login
Register