I am strongly in favor of expanding solar as fast as we can, but I don’t think there is any way it can be done fast enough, or pushed far enough, to come close to replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear power could replace virtually all use of fossil fuels for generating electricity within twenty years if we were to start now.

But I’ve got caveats. Solar arrays in the desert? I’m not into desert ecosystems the way some are, so that doesn’t bother me too much. But … getting that power to where it can be used can turn out to be a major problem. Nuclear waste? Sure, we’ve got to address it eventually, but it builds up pretty slowly, and we have containment technology good for fifty years or more. But … I’ve heard knowledgeable people argue that cement production is a major contributor to global warming, and nuclear facilities use massive amounts of concrete. Of course that also applies to large hydroelectric plants, another “carbon neutral” energy source.

There really are no simple answers. … Well, there is one. ICE vehicles mean hundreds of millions of carbon sources to be shut down in the future. Electric vehicles mean the carbon sources are centralized and can be corrected without requiring action by hundreds of millions of consumers.

What about oblique impacts? Have you done any work to investigate the percentage of impacts that would be sufficiently perpendicular to not jam the slides?

ex-EV1 driver, I agree that fusion will probably not be viable anytime soon, if ever. The containment problems seem too great.

sean t, the complaint about solar panels (which I figured was coming) is that they destroy the animal habitat by cooling the ground and air in the desert. This may be overblown (I don’t know), but the point is that no energy source is without issues. We need to pick out which disadvantages we are willing to accept, along with the benefits.

hamilton, good points about the nuclear waste disposal. We need to find a good, stable, long-term storage ponit for it. The recent reductions in the amount of nuclear waste per kW-h means we wouldn’t need nearly the room the waste for new nuclear plants.

jake, I agree that the “zero-emissions” refers to what comes out of the tailpipe (or lack of one). My complaint is the inconsistency of our governments (state and Federal). On one hand, they want to “solve” global warming with CAFE requirements (rather than a more effective shift from income tax to fuel tax), recognizing that emissions have an impact, no matter where they are emitted. On the other hand, they call an electric car “zero-emissions,” implying it has no ill effects. Which is it? I should know better than to expect government to not be hypocritical, but I would hope that the auto-makers would stop using the term.

I think more than a few people are aware there are emissions associated with electricity, and the powerplant emissions are commonly mentioned when EVs are discussed. For hydrogen on the other hand, it might be more of an issue since people see hydrogen as fuel, unlike electricity, which most people see as a carrier.

As for the solar/wind energy vs nuclear, I tend to like the solar/wind energy more. I get all the benefits of nuclear, but like most people, I still don’t like having to find a place to bury the waste. With solar panels, I can install on my own roof and be relatively energy independent. The only down side is longevity, which should be improving. For larger scale, solar thermal is also looking quite good. As for the base load, it is still a question mark. Energy storage, whether it is batteries (there might be a decent used battery market) or hydrogen might solve that issue, but in the meantime, natural gas or nuclear seems to be the better choices.

@sean t
I think he’s talking about conservationists who say solar panels in the desert will affect wildlife.

Unless we collectively decide to meet 50+% of (rising) electricity demand from burning coal (and let our grandkids bake), then “all of the above” – nuclear, wind, solar, energy efficiency, even tidal and geothermal – is the only responsible answer. Not either/or, but all of the above, as quickly as possible.

It’d be great if his could take place on an even playing field that fairly accounts for direct & indirect subsidies (AP – don’t forget about Price-Anderson & Yucca Mountain when you’re rightly citing tax incentives, rebates and carve-outs for the intermittent RE sources). Too much to ask. But the subsidies should at least be transparent!