Go to any of those countries.

Streets and rivers are covered in plastic.

https://youtu.be/FRZQ-efABeQ

Dropping physics in uni was the best decision of my life.

I really rate that youtuber though

You should see land usage per calorie for different foods

I thought the general consensus that they will not die in 25 years?

>Energy collected from close solar orbit can be beamed not only back to Earth, but also anywhere in the solar system (Mars, the moon, the asteroid belt).

What size beam divergence are you expecting at these various distances?

How much of that is recent though?

Because the driest month in Portland is 3 days of rain and the driest month in Cardiff is 14 days of rain.

That's a huge difference.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainy-days,portland,United-States-of-America

http://www.cardiff.climatemps.com/precipitation.php

I can still rain. Just needs less of the slight drizzle for three weeks followed by a week if heavy rain.

Malaysia is very green. It just shits down for a couple of hours and then has clear blue skies.

I'm not saying I want climate change but seeing as it is happening it would be nice if Wales was the place getting abnormally hotter and drier.

Peak demand is what? 80% higher than baseline load.

Whatever you are using to fill in near 50% of the total demand is not going to come from nuclear. You still got GW of power that are needed to be provided.

Nuclear doesn't solve the difference between supply and demand and it's the most expensive form of energy.

Well they balance the grid by using Europe. So that's not a fair comparison.

I really don't understand this nuclear arguement about baseline. Supply needs to match demand.

Having a stable baseline doesn't mean supply matches demand and nuclear isn't really variable. So how could it possibly improve anything? It's not like at peak demand you are going to tell people not to cook, heat their homes or watch TV because there is only baseline power available and baseline demand needs to keep running.

That's not the issue that's the beauty. Solar and wind are the cheapest forms of power. So they can be built profitability for a cheaper price than anything else. That's means we will have more energy and it will cost us less. Don't even need to get the government invovled. Nuclear is just expensive and gains us nothing. Sure the government could build it but why? Again there are better things to spend the money on.

I disagree. Even if governments pay for nuclear then they are still spending money which has to come from taxes or borrowing. So that still costs the economy. That money could be better spend on other things like insulation, heat pumps, public transport etc. So I don't think getting the government to pay for nuclear has any benefits. Also roll out of renewables is faster than nuclear.

I didn't really explain how profits work in economic theory, that's my fault. In a competitive market (which is usually a market that is easy to enter) profits will cause more businesses and people to invest and also cause companies inside that market to expand. Solar and batteries seem incredibly competitive to me as even homeowners are even able to get into the market. Supply of the goods even seems highly competitive just based on how rapidly costs are decreasing.

In economic theory high profits in competitive markets just means growth. Eventually profits will get to a point where marginal costs =0. This means that the last solar farm or battery farm will turn no profit and if anyone entered the market they would actually lose money. So until people stop making money we are going to see a lot of people wanting to get in the game and make money.