>>10784142>1.5-2x as much as what?As much as the power costs without any carbon capture. It is still not scalable and dispatchable.
>Also, renewable energy takes way more space than what is available. To get enough solar panels or windmills to provide for the US would take up nearly the entirety of all farmland available. In other words, no crops and no food, at all. And even then it wouldn't be enough.Where are you getting your numbers? Using total TWhs/year for the US, average incoming solar radiation, and typical solar PV efficiencies, the current electricity demand of the US could be met using less than 1% of available land area. Admittedly, that is still a ton of land, but it's not some impossible problem like you're suggesting.
>Unless you want nuclear power, which is a very very good source of energy that gives off 0 carbon emissionsYou don't know anything about this, do you? Life-cycle emissions a nuclear power plant are about 20% of conventional fossil fuel, for the fuel mining and processing, transportation, the concrete poured to make the facility, and decommissioning. It's a definite improvement over coal or natural gas, but it's not emissions free, and still much higher than solar or wind. It's about comparable to hydroelectric life cycle emissions.
>and is 4000% safer than solar or wind energy.Solar and wind are safe enough.
