5 ms·

> solar may be more harmful to the environment than nuclear. Wow. What?

• Retric 8y ago
  Nuclear can be very self contained. They both take quite a bit of mining, but solar needs more land area. Sure, rooftops works for single family homes, but that does not scale for high rises. Unlike Wind you can't grow crops under solar, so you end up changing habitats that would have been untouched. Granted, if you fuck it up Nuclear can cause more problems. But most of it's issues are for Humans with our longer lifespans and higher cancer risks. Just look at all the wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. And, the area around Fukushima is rapidly turning into wilderness.
  • tim333 8y ago
    You can grow crops under solar sometimes http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crops-with-solar-farms-could-increase-land-use-efficiency-by-as-much-as-60/ http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2017/12/doubling-up-crop...
    • Retric 8y ago
      That's rather low density solar and still requires extra farm land. But, point well made.
  • roryisok 8y ago
    Ok, your point was not at all what I expected and I have to concede it makes sense. But its also worth pointing out the that the best places for solar are usually hot deserts, not arable land. Regarding Chernobyl and Fukushima, the radiation keeps humans away which is probably the biggest contributor to wildlife resettlement. But I still would rather see arable land made unusable by shade than by radiation