The more I look into the external costs of solar PV energy - and the more that
science looks into solar PV energy - the less and less and less attractive it becomes.
It is a black hole, a
toxic black hole, designed to suck
money into meretricious consumer fantasies that are mostly involved in
denial.
Now, you live in Ohio; I live in New Jersey, down wind from your coal plants, but that's hardly your fault.
The OP here was written by a fundamentalist - a fundamentalist is a person whose ideas are not subject to revision because of
any amount of information. I regrettably, know this person quite well, a person who has been posting "world's largest solar" posts for well more than half a decade, and "solar will save us" for more than half a decade, since 2002, all the while scaremongering about the world's largest, by far, source of climate change free primary energy.
Note that the little whiny fundie doesn't give a rat's ass about the deaths from
renewable energy in the 20th century, including the more than 200,000 people who died in a single night in 1975 from the Banqiao dam disaster in China, because his shtick consists
entirely of selective attention.
How much dangerous fossil fuel waste was dumped, by the way, while this guy has been continuously chanting - cultishly - about how solar will save us.
I note, with due contempt, that the amount of dangerous fossil fuel waste dumped into the atmosphere since 2002 now is somewhere in the neighborhood of
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls">200 billion tons.
The number of fundie anti-nukes who understand numbers or more importantly the
scale of numbers is zero. That said,
one billion is the number of seconds in about 31 years. Thus if one dumped one ton a second of dangerous fossil fuel waste up until the present day from the time of Galileo's
birth, one would only be able to produce 14 billion tons, a fraction of what has been dumped while dumb guys have been arguing here that "solar will save us."
Here they are prattling about 83 acres designed to produce the energy (they say) for 6000 homes, while not recognizing that the number of homes in Ohio is more than 4.51
million, including apartment dwellers.
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Area%20Sheets/Area%20Sheet%20OH.docThe reason they are able to get away with these insufferably stupid claims about how solar will save us, and how it doesn't have a waste problem or an external cost problem, is precisely because solar PV is, was, and most likely continue to be a
trivial form of energy in the life time of everyone now living, in spite of more than 50 years of prattling. Because it is trivial, it is
easy to overlook its environmental, social, economic and other costs.
In case anyone has any question about
when this prattling began, here is an ad from, um, 1954,
trillions of tons of carbon dioxide ago:
I have been a strong supporter of nuclear energy - which is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy ever since Chernobyl blew up, establishing for all time, the worst case, which is
not worse than the last
week of coal waste dumping.
I note that 100% of nuclear's critics do not apply the same criteria to any other form of energy - including the failed solar industry - that they apply to
nuclear energy. The implication - that they declare by
fiat, sort of like the way that Pat Robertson asserts by fiat that
his interpretation of Jesus is the only thing that matters - that
only nuclear energy need be perfect and all other forms of energy can kill at will.
I'm agnostic on geothermal, and my opinion of wind energy is lowering all the time, and I only favor it in very limited circumstances.
But nuclear energy is the
gold standard. It is the
only form of energy that evaluated all of its external costs
before it was built, a point I noted elsewhere:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/22/202710/47 ">A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost?
In fact, the external costs of nuclear energy have
not been as high as expected by its inventors, including Enrico Fermi, expected it, although neither Fermi, nor Weinberg, nor Bethe, nor any other of the world class
scientists who invented it expected.
The person who has the
most to do with this happy state of affairs was Weinberg, inventor of the pressurized water reactor. At the time of his death at 91 years of age, Weinberg was noting that nuclear energy could not be made safer, not because it was
dangerous, but because it was
already safer than everything else, the representations of anti-nuke fundies aside. Weinberg's
cleaning lady was undoubtedly better educated than the entire set of "solar will save us" fundies who write on this website.
But the requirement that
only nuclear energy need be perfect is, again, absurd and in fact, toxic, since people
die from this bizarre fundie calculation.
Nuclear energy need not be risk free to be better than everything else. It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.