WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

752

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)

[–] 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.