# Suppose you want to do something against anthropogenic i.e. man-made climate change and you can only use blocks A,B,C,D and E. Suppose the world requires 250.000 power units. Let's see how much units each block produces :

Block A : 1.75 units
Block B : 2.63 units
Block C : 4.38 units
Block D : 5.70 units
Block E : 7.89 units

Suppose there are limits on how many blocks per type you can build.

100 A Blocks
100 B Blocks
0 C Blocks
100 D Blocks
100 E Blocks

This gives us a maximum block count of 400, and rough unit count of 1800 per year. You need 250.000 units to carbonize energy, so by this reckoning it would take us 138 years to do it.

Let's translate this to real world figures, shall we?

Block A = 1000 MW solar PV = 1,75 TWh per year
Block B = 1000 MW wind = 2.63 TWh per year
Block C = 1000 MW Hydro = 4.38 TWh per year
Block D = 1000 MW Geothermal = 5.70 TWh per year
Block E = 1000 MW Nuclear = 7.89 TWh per year

As you can see, I've given each technology an equal chance and a level playing field. I've given each technology 100 GW of annual additions. Nuclear in this context nearly produces twice as much energy as solar and wind combined do for the same yield. We currently see annual additions of half these figures for wind and solar i,e, roughly around 50 to 60 GW per technology. We're in the process of adding 68.9 GW of nuclear energy to the grid. Granted the deployment speed of a nuclear reactor might be slower, but it lasts thrice as long as wind and solar, and it packs a tremendous punch in terms of energy generation.

I've set up the premise to rebut the following article which has been written by Nina Chestney and has been published on the Reuters Website (No less...) :