▲ 783 ▼ We can do all three things at once (yiffit.net) submitted 2 years ago by Forester@yiffit.net to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 228 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] capital@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child) The US has a fuckton of space not being occupied by anyone or anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Sniatch@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then why dont you have 100 nuclear plants on that space permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not profitable for the oil companies permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sniatch@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I tell you a secret, It's not profitable for anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone permalink fedilink source parent [–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago One of many reasons is the issue of distribution at a distance. It's terribly inefficient to deliver power to distant locations because you get drops the further you go. Another reason would be strategic. You don't want to have too much infrastructure centralized on a single location in case of war. permalink fedilink source parent [–] capital@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Unfortunately I do not make these decisions for our country. But placing power generation far from consumption is probably not the move. My response was about where to put waste. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Sniatch@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (3 children) Then why dont you have 100 nuclear plants on that space permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not profitable for the oil companies permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sniatch@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I tell you a secret, It's not profitable for anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone permalink fedilink source parent [–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago One of many reasons is the issue of distribution at a distance. It's terribly inefficient to deliver power to distant locations because you get drops the further you go. Another reason would be strategic. You don't want to have too much infrastructure centralized on a single location in case of war. permalink fedilink source parent [–] capital@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Unfortunately I do not make these decisions for our country. But placing power generation far from consumption is probably not the move. My response was about where to put waste. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Because it's not profitable for the oil companies permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sniatch@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I tell you a secret, It's not profitable for anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sniatch@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children) I tell you a secret, It's not profitable for anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all. permalink fedilink source parent [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone permalink fedilink source parent
[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago Electricity is a public utility. Profit shouldn't come into the question. When it does you just end up using coal and gas, which isn't good for the planet or people at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago Surely all that cheap electricity would help someone permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago One of many reasons is the issue of distribution at a distance. It's terribly inefficient to deliver power to distant locations because you get drops the further you go. Another reason would be strategic. You don't want to have too much infrastructure centralized on a single location in case of war. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] capital@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* Unfortunately I do not make these decisions for our country. But placing power generation far from consumption is probably not the move. My response was about where to put waste. permalink fedilink source parent
