3 ms·
> Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution? Nuclear. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy (source: ht
by fzort 7y ago
> Do you have a clear concept of a viable solution?
Nuclear. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy (source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#2501e084e4de https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08...)
- reacweb 7y agoI think nuclear is the best current solution, but it is too late to build nuclear plant now because it requires 40 years to be cost effective. I hope that solar will become better than nuclear in less than 10 years.
- kalium-xyz 7y agoSolar less space efficient even at maximum capacity.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y agoSorry, but that's just a dumb comparison. For one, solar farms don't use land the same way nuclear power plants do, in terms of effects on the environment/ecosystem (you potentially can even do agriculture on the same land ...). Then, you can't install nuclear power plants on rooftops, but you can put solar panels there, thus using no land at all. And finally, you avoid a lot of losses and don't need as much distribution infrastructure when you have solar panels within the city where the energy is being used. Also, I don't see how you could build sufficient nuclear capacity in time to sufficiently reduce carbon emissions without compromising safety (after all, nuclear energy is inherently extremely dangerous--the fact that we so far have been able to operate it very safely does not mean that that is an inherent property of the technology that we could maintain if we tried building hundreds of gigawatts in a decade). Nuclear (fission) energy might have been a sensible route in the past, but it doesn't seem so right now.