412
Minnesota solar project set to replace retiring coal plant reaches 710 MW
(www.solarpowerworldonline.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
412 points (100.0% liked)
Uplifting News
19404 readers
567 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah, convert it to nuclear
I would have suggested that as its the best bang for the buck. But people lose their mind when its on the table...
Building nuclear in a country with proper safety standards and everything is insanely expensive, where did you get the idea that it's the "best bang for the buck"? There are always cost overruns and they tend to be a multiple of the original project cost estimate.
Also you need to keep buying/extracting nuclear fuel to run a nuclear power plant... With solar, the sun is the fuel! With no buying or extracting, it removes a big ongoing cost from the equation and significantly improves self-reliance. I don't understand how this seems to not communicate to people.
A good chunk of the cost of a nuclear plant is all the steam driven turbines and power infrastructure. That's already there in a retrofitted coal plant. And even without that, nuclear is cheaper in the long run. And even without that, not everything is about the god damned money.
You want nuclear plant and natural disaster to meet each other?