@Louis Fusion is essentially a renewable source of energy. I wasn't talking about "wind power" or some pipedream like that.

Although hydroelectric power and solar power have great potential if used correctly.

@Reprehensibletrash that's why i hold Gold among other things

Solar is worthless, until it's perfected, it creates very little energy over time

What i mean is that nuclear is a step towards fusion and it is effectivly renewable in 20 generations

@Reprehensibletrash Good luck with that. Getting entire countries to simply not recognize the value of currency is not an easy thing to do.

Solar is worthless tbh

You misheard me, seven

I didn't say no currency

I said not yours.

Money itself is necessary. Even the communists knew this.

But everybody else recognises it.

Gonna tell my kids this man was primeminister

I bet envirocucks would hate fusion power tbh

@Reprehensibletrash Not true. The problem is that the solar power idiots want to put it up basically everywhere, when it's not efficient.

Solar power will do jack shit in a place like Rhode Island. But if you covered the Mojave Desert with solar panels, you'd basically cover the power needs of the entire U.S.

Because its to effective

Solar power is still dirty in its own ways.

@Louis They're not really interested in the enviroment though. It's all just a pretence to muscle in on energy markets with underhanded means. "Disqualify" their established competition so they can sell an inferior product.

@Seven Proxies 100% correct

Solar power has low efficiency costs far more electricity it to make than it creates

As well as is damaging ecologically to make

Solar panels are not enviromentaly friendly

At that point why not build towers which reach several miles upwards, and put the solar panels at the top, above the cloud line

@lancelout Right now it does. Because solar panels are expensive to make. They haven't made any serious efforts at cost cutting mass production yet.

And then there's the issue of making sure the bastards don't get dirtied with sandstorms and rains.

Like veganism is not enviromentaly friendly either

^

Meat eating is more enviromentaly friendly

Hit me with the arguments, Louis.

Because it uses less land

@Zephyr Blackfish Moving the goalposts a little there though. Any kind of power plant will require some form of maintenance. Nuclear powerplants don't work without maintenance either.

Nuclear is relatively clean, which is funny.

It's about time we start doing massive indoor farms, the more vertical the better

@Seven Proxies powerplants arent the size of a Mojave Desert-sized solar-farm.

The more vertical, the more farms can be had within city limits, and without damaging the city or creating farmland

@Seven Proxiesif only we could make Nuclear power plants human error free. I think this would be a good challenge for engineering and architecture.

That would cripple the farmland that exists@Reprehensibletrash

@Zephyr Blackfish No, but you're going to need a crapton of nuclear powerplants to get the same energy output. Besides, it's not like the mojave desert is some sort of "prime real estate". I mean, it's a fucking desert.

Skyscraper except there are farms on each level and 45 degree roof mirrors so the light actually gets in there

@Seven Proxies build the nuclear powerplants in the Mojave Desert for a fraction of the space and energy-cost, cuck. You'll need a "crap ton" more solar panels than you'd ever need nuclear powerplants.

@Zephyr Blackfish Sorry. The nuclear power plants required would cost more.

that is incorrect