Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

Complete waste of space and resources. 4600 acres for this? You could do it with 40 and a nuclear plant, and still get more energy output. has a chart that proves the point of this fucking article.

Complete waste of space and resources. 4600 acres for this? You could do it with 40 and a nuclear plant, and still get more energy output. @stupidbird has a chart that proves the point of this fucking article.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 2 pts

I'll have to find the video later tonight when I have a bit of time. There's a college physicist who explains a lot of these energy things for laypeople. His college operates a clean coal plant. It's pretty amazing to see how clean we can get them. Granted at that level the cost competitive nature goes downhill, but still, I'd trust domestic coal over other forms of nondomestic

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I'll quantify my statement. There's no way to economically burn coal in a clean way. Perhaps if delivery and distribution was near perfect...

This is kind of the lightbulb thing. Sure, I can make you an LED lamp that's going to last for 50 years. It's going to cost you $10k because of all of the special hand engineering that goes into making it. The $3 unit you get at the store that lasts for 5 years is a major compromise in engineering to get cheap manufacturability.

Nuclear still wins when it comes down to it.