• Narrrz
    link
    fedilink
    241 year ago

    even if it did, so what?

    oh, saving the planet is too expensive, so we’re just going to let it die to save money

    • @OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe
      link
      91 year ago

      We can all tighten our purse strings for a few years collectively (or the top 1% does it for like…a few months) or a select few of us can live in an underwater utopia built by our boiling slaves…we’re going to go with the slaves

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I realise you’re being facetious and I do agree with your sentiment… But I guess if this was true we could/should look at potential other, cheaper, alternatives (like invest in more wave abs geothermal power)

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If it cost 1000s of 10,000s a month to simply cook food, it would probably not be worth the cost to save the planet. That’s how high they expensive they expected wind to be in their calculations.

  • Track_Shovel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    Rightwing thinktank Civitas mistakenly cost onshore wind power 10,000 times higher than reality and claimed bill would be £4.5tn

    • WalrusDragonOnABike
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Feel like its a common mistake to mix up kW and kWh, but if you don’t know the basics of power you shouldn’t be trying to write on the topic and any peer reviewer should know the cost of onshore wind is in the cents per kWh, not 100’s of dollars per kWh if someone has even if only from paying attention to their own electric bill.

      Also apparently mixed billions and trillions at one point? Just a small factor of a 3 (orders of magnitudes).