They want to start building new nuclear reactors,?

Question

should we take the billions that will be spent on that and put it towards converting homes to solar instead?. It would take 1
billion dollars to convert 40,000 homes to solar, so for the 3 billion it takes to build a nuke reactor you could convert 120,000 homes or twice that if you offered to pay for half and the homeowner paid the other half with low cost loans, and there'd be no waste disposal problems afterwards and no chance of "accident". Would this be a more logical way to go?.

Germany has been making a major push towards solar, they have passed legislation to pay people who install panels, they have farmers who have turned over parts of their farms to solar panels and feed the grid. They have started installing panels along large stretches highway (autobahn ) right of ways also, and their doing even more by building solar panel manufacturing plants to bring down costs as well.

Germany has been making a major push towards solar, they have passed legislation to pay people who install panels, they have farmers who have turned over parts of their farms to solar panels and feed the grid. They have started installing panels along large stretches of highway (autobahn ) right of ways also, and their doing even more by building solar panel manufacturing plants to bring down costs as well.

Answer 1

No it would not be more logical. I'm all for solar enrgy--but there is no "one size fits all" magic bullet--we need a comprehensive mix of technologies to get off oil and coal.

Bear in mind--soalr will not work at night--and we don't have cost effective storage batterises for that kind of application yet. Also--(using your figures)-that "120,000 homes sounds like a lot--but the nuclear reactor woudl not only power them, but all the associated business, industry, etc.

The best mix is probably BOTH--with heavy use of solar energy during the daylight hours--thereby lowering the peak demand a powerplant has to provide by a wide margin. Doing that--a nuclear power plant of a given size could support twice the population (more or less) than it could without an integrated solar power system operating with it.

Answer 2

Nuclear power is the cleanest power that we can produce. With today's technology it is also the safest with the lowest amount of pollution (pollution has killed millions more people than any accidental discharges involving nuclear material combined with nuclear bomb detonations).

120,000 homes is a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that the 100 or so nuclear reactors operating in the United States provide 21% of all of the electricity currently used. A vast majority of the rest of the power we consume comes from coal (and will continue to come from dirty coal if more nuclear plants aren't built).

France and Germany are two of the most left-leaning/socialistic countries and they are heavily reliant on safe and economical nuclear power, so it is not some conservative cause as people would have you believe. Pollution is down wherever nuclear replaces dirtier methods and accidents are almost unheard-of.

People fear what they cannot understand so nuclear has an undeserved stigma. Thinking people realize it is cleaner, cheaper and safer than what we're doing now.

Answer 3

That sounds like a good plan,

Except, that a $25,000 home solar system, would only provide about 16% of the energy that home uses in a year.

And thats in areas with abundant sunlight, wouldn't help much in the northeast.

But you would still have to provide the other 84% of that homes energy needs.

And since fossil fuel power plants are the single largest contributor of greenhouse gas's.

We should do everything possible, to replace them as quickly as we can.

Answer 4

No, solar energy is unreliable and it is very expensive. If we are struck by large meteors, or if many volcanoes erupt at the same time, the sunlight would be greatly diminished for months. It happened when the Tunguska meteor exploded earlier last century, and when Krakatoa exploded in the 19th century.

We should build more nuclear plants, demand that autos get better fuel mileage, and make energy efficiency standards for all new American homes and offices.

Answer 5

There are parts of the Country and times of the year where solar would not be the best power source. In the south east it might work, but in the northern States we don't have continuous sunshine. Atomic power is far safer and cleaner than oil, coal or natural gas.

Answer 6

Why no hydrogen fuel cells? All it creates is water, heat, and electricity by fusing oxygen and hydrogen.
You can:
Light your house on cloudy days without making lighting the ground neon green!
Heat your home without heating the planet!
Continue the process over and over without paying monthly bills!
The energy industry has to figure out how to make this kind of alternate energy cheap and practical. It spends less on research and development than the concrete industry.*

Answer 7

Yes. Solar and geothermal is what we shoud pursue. We should have to purchase the necessary equipment and then have energy at no further cost.

Answer 8

I've got a better idea.... why not make generators which run on water.... (Stanley Meyer's motor)... and get rid of fat hydro companies... home owner pays once and has electricity forever....