| superchunk said: I'm good with it in exchange for closing down all the coal and other electric plants. While there is an obvious chance for an issue, I think we've come to the time where we can secure it enough to not due widespread damage. Plus, this has only been an issue with the most severe of disasters and frankly, how often does this happen? Part of the plan should be to try to keep them away from fault lines, and prepare for the worst should it happen. But, their use is far less devastating on a daily basis than the other electric production types and unfortunately solar production just isn't at the point where it can replace nuclear yet. In 10 years, then there is another story where solar panels throughput might be at the point where its highly feesible to build massive arrays to replace nuclear. I think if anything the fact that this is such a low part of the overall disaster, in reality, it proves nuclear isn't really that scary. Media and politicians are freaking out when all the scientific community is saying the opposite. |
I agree with coal plants, but Solar power plants are getting bigger. Every week there is at least a megawatt of power completed. Its expected by years end another 200mws of power will be installed for corporate use, residential is unknown.
http://www.green-energy-news.com/ scroll down to seven days of solar.
