/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12090307
You better power a coastal city with offshore wind.

>>10083229
at first there will be more capacity then needed (you can observe this in Europe, also in the US) but after a few years more and more old fossil power plants shut down because they would need mayor repairs or reach the end of their lifetime, this happens even faster for atomic power because they are less competitive then coal and repairs are more expensive.
natural gas will survive longer

As an investor I would always prefer wind and solar over atomic power. Simply because you can build these much faster. This means it will start earning money back faster. It's really this simple.

>>10007827
Entire forests are cut down for coal mines, all animals living there are killed. Modern wind turbines produce up to 10 MW per turbine. An average nuclear reactor or coal plant is 500MW. So an wind park with just 50 turbines can replace a coal or a nuclear plant. Wind turbines also look much better then dirty coalmines and dirty coal plants.

>>9964570
New turbines typically generate 6 MW. Off shore up to 9.5 MW. Construction cost is about 1 million per MW, way below atomic power. So for your 5 billions you would get about 5 GW. To be fair, wind turbines will not always run on full power. But atomic reactors have to be shut down for maintenance and can not generate power at this time.

A typical investor in energy business is an pension fund. They like safe bet's.