/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10934852
It's not being built because people spaz out about muh Chernobyl. You're actually retarded if you think renewables are more efficient than highly compact energy resources such as coal and high energy dense radioactive materials. I tried searching for you claims but the only shit I found was blog post level garbage about how muh renewables are better than nuclear because it produces a greater share of the US power production (yes, it's apparently an argument from the I LOVE SCIENCE group that because renewables are more shilled for and invested in we should invest in them more because the fact they were invested in means they're better). Also, your fake values from the shitty stylized graph with no source here >>10933090 is an absolute joke and just proves futher that you have no clue what you're talking about. By doing some real research I found https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf, which shows similar values and concludes that renewables are COMPLEMENTARY to baseload generators such as coal or nuclear. Completely blowing out your retarded "argument". It further points out that while renewables; which have been heavily shilled for for the last few decades have also become extremely efficient, nuclear; which has been shilled against since the first meltdown, has been barely optimized due to the retard mob of renewable evangelists screeching about the evils of nuclear.