Fazoo

Saint Harambe, passing on his wisdom. RIP you fucking legend. This day drink's for you.

I honestly couldn't believe it when watching Al Jazeera this morning. It's like the explosion in Lebanon. I can't imagine the chaos of it all for the locals.

You can't wrap your head around it because you simply don't want to. Of course I didn't mention every single potential crop. I mentioned the three most widely grown, around the entire world. Corn, rice, and soy. Yes, others would do well, but building above these crops would never work on large agricultural areas. Why? Because you need machinery to harvest large grow ops before they spoil. Farmers would never afford the human labor required to match. It will work great on smaller scale farms, people using upwards of 25 acres. What does that achieve power wise though by comparison? Not enough power.

Pastures are an issue for two reasons. One, grass needs direct sunlight to properly grow. Two, animal agriculture is a major cause of carbon emissions. We need less pastureland, and covering it doesn't help. You could convert existing pastureland into a reactor site, saving existing nature from development.

You would still need to develop new land for larger arrays. Land use that could be minimized by maximizing the possible power output.

Because that was the discussion, the amount of energy produced by nuclear vs other clean means and the amount of area dedicated for each to produce the same.

There are very few ignorantly disagreeing with this easy to prove fact, you being one of them. I do understand scale of a country, and the space required to power it via reactors saves hundreds of thousands of acres when compared to solar and wind.

Go Google the required acreage for each and educate yourself. You're the one being ridiculous by attempting to call me out for "one single argument" and then continuing to prove you have no real concept of size and scale.

Compared to a hundred acres? Meaning the other 2,900 acres could be preserved in some form of natural state? That absolutely is a lot when you consider the energy needs of a modern country. The fact you're acting like that's not a valid argument just proves how ignorant you are.

Growing crops under a solar array does not justify your inability to comprehend land size/use. Corn? Fine, that works with indirect. Soy and rice do not though. So 2 of the 3 most widely grown crops would be hindered by that plan.

So instead of destroying major crops with the ridiculous idea of building thousands of acres of solar panels, or tens of thousands of acres of wind turbines, we should focus on the much smaller impact of nuclear energy.

But they're all using a discounted NordVPN thanks to Warographics.

Absolutely not. 100+ acres vs 3,000+ acres is anything but miniscule. I suggest you do a little research on the discussion you're attempting to take part in.

Any space saved is space for untouched environment, which is more beneficial to the planet. You're using Chinese logic, which lead to mountains blanketed with solar panels. There will be consequences for such decisions down the road.

No, you literally can't. Energy demands are only going to increase. The energy output for the land required, for a nuclear plant, is far better overall compared to the area required for wind and solar to match it.

"police responded with unprecedented violence."

"At least 170 people were injured, including 49 police officers."

I hope whoever wrote that article is alright. It must be painful, all those mental gymnastics.

Not 100% sure, but I had someone calling me over and over the other day, after talking about a mining haul in chat. Figured that's what they were up to.

The comms calls limited to friends is a nice touch. Probably their easy fix for that location bug via calls.