> No I didn't.
Yes. You did. Solar panels do not use rare earth minerals. Go google it.
Rare earth magnets are used in some wind turbines, but alternatives exist there. That does change the cost calculations a touch, but not enough to invalidate the viability of a renewables + storage solution.
> I'm saying that you will need vast new tracks of land regardless of that fact.
People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this.
> I have no idea why you think only 'grazing' areas are the only ecosystems we need to protect.
Because I didn't.
The big picture environmental imperative is to decarbonize as fast as possible. Nuclear is not competitive vs that goal due to the very high capital costs, garbage ROI, and very long time scales compared to renewables. This is the cold hard dollars math that you see regardless of politics, as the same economics are showing up in authoritarian states.
If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. And originally that was looking like the outcome of their "build everything then decarbonize after building the economy" long term energy strategy. But now they're pulling back from their original scale goals for nuclear. Even though they're building more plants than anyone now, they've consistently reduced the number in the long term plan, to the extent that they likely won't be starting projects that aren't already in motion.
Yes. You did. Solar panels do not use rare earth minerals. Go google it.
Rare earth magnets are used in some wind turbines, but alternatives exist there. That does change the cost calculations a touch, but not enough to invalidate the viability of a renewables + storage solution.
> I'm saying that you will need vast new tracks of land regardless of that fact.
People have done the math. Land availability is not a bottleneck on this.
> I have no idea why you think only 'grazing' areas are the only ecosystems we need to protect.
Because I didn't.
The big picture environmental imperative is to decarbonize as fast as possible. Nuclear is not competitive vs that goal due to the very high capital costs, garbage ROI, and very long time scales compared to renewables. This is the cold hard dollars math that you see regardless of politics, as the same economics are showing up in authoritarian states.
If nuclear was the slam dunk you're assuming, China would just do it. And originally that was looking like the outcome of their "build everything then decarbonize after building the economy" long term energy strategy. But now they're pulling back from their original scale goals for nuclear. Even though they're building more plants than anyone now, they've consistently reduced the number in the long term plan, to the extent that they likely won't be starting projects that aren't already in motion.