So sandwich is the parent category, and hot dogs are a type of sandwich? Are burgers, too?
Oh no I accidentally started researching, there is an actual British Sandwich Association that defines sandwich as “any form of bread with a filling, generally assembled cold”. The USDA, however, has different definitions for open and closed sandwiches and it depends on the percentage amounts of bread and meat… I guess if you put cheese on your bread it’s not a sandwich at all!
Dishonor! Dishonor on you, dishonor on your tuna!
The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:
You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don’t go and remove forests to put solar panels there
Plenty of space isn’t arable in the first place, so what’s the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?
@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?
You keep coming back to that one single argument you seem to have with space requirements, which several people have explained to be ridiculous, and you just keep repeating it? Do you have any idea about the scale of a country vs that of a solar park?
The space saved is so miniscule compared to theobvious benefits (way cheaper, quicker and easier construction than nuclear, no problem with long term storage of waste products) that it is an absolute no brainer. Also, it’s not like windparks are on fields of asphalt.
The area required for enough wind and solar is still small enough to not be an issue. That nuclear needs less space per amount of energy produced does not matter
I want Todd to not make promises he can’t keep.
I agree the the democrats are not nearly serious enough about stopping climate change, but the republican party is actively hindering efforts and definitely worse for the plant in the long run.
Neither party being serious does not mean one isn’t way worse than the other
Anytime you have a chance to vote, take it, and vote for whatever option will be most likely to reduce the overall emissions. In most cases, this will probably mean voting for programs/parties etc that oppose conservatism.
Proceed