💀
@waltercool
Not sure what they mean by "Europe's solar industry is starting to buckle", but solar panels do have inherent flaws relating to "too much such", the main being that as they heat up, they're less efficient. And since sunlight usually heats up anything that is even slightly dark... yes, "too much sun for solar panels" is a sentence that makes perfect sense, and is not clown world territory.
It's okay to use solar/wind/wave/hydro... etc based power, but the whole agenda to reduce carbon is ridiculous.
Not just because BRICS gives a fck about it (over 60% population countries) but because it's not continous generation.
We already have a pollution free and continous generation power plant but Europeans except Baguettes "hate it", it's called Nuclear.
@meowski @waltercool
Nuclear pollution concerns are way overblown.
@meowski @waltercool
Dude, Fukushima and Chernobyl are nowhere near in the same category. Fukushima actually had amazingly low radiation leak considering how bad the tsunami was. Heck, it had a low radiation leak altogether.
As for Chernobyl, even ignoring the obvious culpability of a corrupt communism regime that didn't give a crap about safety, as opposed to anything we have today; using Chernobyl as an argument is like me using the first solar cell ever invented as argument against solar panels. It's retarded. Compare current tech vs current tech, not current tech vs primitive and intentionally flawed design that was made as such to be cheap. We have much better nuclear power plant designs currently in use, and better still designs not being put in use because of Greenpeace-type morons.
you simply can not put a price on making large parts of the surface of the earth uninhabitable for the next billion years
don't try to tell me nuclear energy is "green" it's not.
@meowski @waltercool
>making large parts of the surface of the earth uninhabitable
Go back to Greenpeace. You're not welcomed here.
