Ka-pi96 said:
Solar power may not be the most efficient, and is practically impossible to rely on 100% (or anywhere even close to 100% actually), but it's still way better for the environment than something like coal power. Plus, solar power is never going to have a Chernobyl. Why does wind power "require" us to cut down trees? Ever heard of offshore wind power? Or ya know, plains/hills that just don't have trees in the first place? |
If they were anticipating the unforeseen disaster at Chernobyl, don't you think they wouldn't have built it in the first place? If there ever becomes a problem of some sort with solar, while the sites are usually smaller in general, there are a ton of them all over the place, and a significant portion are fairly close to densely populated area's in comparison.
You can't just slap solar panels or wind turbines just anywhere. Well you can, but if the power output is lousy because it's a typically cloudy or calm area, you've done a poor job of investing and will pay dearly for it. If the hills without trees are in a typically calm area, then nobody is going to bother erecting wind turbines there. They will put them two hours north, in the densely forested hills, which will be cleared, where the wind is typically potent.
I've been on many wind and solar sites, where they cut down hundreds of acres of trees or more. This is because you aren't aloud to mount panels on useful open farmland, and nobody places them where they won't see much sun or get much wind. If that means clearing forest, that's what they do.
