Deutchpleuw t1_je6z3ka wrote

Well that’s for sure. The over head for building a plant isn’t just money expensive, it’s a massive time investment too because of inspection regulations prior to activation. But in terms of power out compared to impact to environment seems to be the current best option (damaged solar components cannot in most cases be recycled or repaired, at least based on what they told us in school and the fins on a wind turbine are very similar causing them to be a potentially big garbage issue) so I wish we could look past that investment overhead and focus on the output :( I know very idealistic and naive I just wish


Deutchpleuw t1_je5yr9l wrote

I love solar and wind on a smaller scale, seems perfect for running a homestead, an apartment, a home, but from what I’ve seen and gathered online it seems like it’s very impractical for mass reliance for a nation the size of the US. Not breaking any new ground but it still seems to be new nuclear options are the way to go for large scale (cities like chicago and New York). Course, there needs to be serious guidelines and penalties for failing to follow them if we do that, can’t have another Chernobyl negligence incident


Deutchpleuw t1_jce1gsj wrote

I think your head is in a good spot, I want to posit the further idea that I think you’d also need: a transparent means of explaining and proving proof why something is misinformation beyond a shadow of a doubt (not like a blurb that boils down to “trust us,” links to websites/articles/media etc though all should be from sources that are not co owned) just to be sure the social media company is able to be communally held accountable for truth and legitimacy. Just to make sure misuse CAN’T happen. Good old CYA