There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

gmtom ,

The right choice. Nuclear would be a great solution if we went all in 40 years ago. But we didnt and now we need a solution as soon as possible, not in 15 years to build a plant or in 25 years when it breaks even, now.

It takes just 6 months to build a 50 MW wind farm edfenergy.com/…/all-you-need-to-know-about-wind-p….

Sweden uses 130 TW/h per year (130000000000 KW/h) as of 2020 www.iea.org/countries/sweden

and about 25% of that is fossil fuels. as of 2017 www.macrotrends.net/…/fossil-fuel-consumption

So they would need to replace 32500000000 KW/h per year to get off fossil fuels

But KW/h/y is dumb so lets just make it KW/h

3710045

Then make it MW (yes I know I converted from TW to KW to MW.) so

3710 MW needed to replace fossil fuels.

So they would need 74 50MW wind farms to match that.

If they wanted to do that in 10 years to be faster than building a single nuclear plant, they would only need to be building 4 farms concurrently.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines