3 ms·
> Not sure whether it can be argued if it is really a better alternative. In science it's better to have a known problem (radioactive waste), than hundreds of
by realusername 7y ago
> Not sure whether it can be argued if it is really a better alternative.
In science it's better to have a known problem (radioactive waste), than hundreds of thousands of unknown problems (global warming).
> Florida even actively prevents businesses from engaging in roof top solar panels
Roof top solar panel is one of the worst way to generate energy, you just add the inefficiency of low scale on top of the inefficiencies of solar panels. Just about everything is better than that.
And then additionally, you can build all the solar and wind energy you want, you still need a constant energy to support it anyway.
- Cthulhu_ 7y agoNot even in science alone; climate-wise having 22km3 of solid material is much preferable over the 30 gigatonnes (!) of CO2 emissions that are just vented into the air nowadays. (and that's just co2, the source [1] I found with a second of googling mentions 60 gigatonnes total) [1] https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2018-report https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-and-...
- llukas 7y agoActually, that is 0.000022 km3 of solid material.