jamesqf -
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
But there's one of the major problems: why should solar be competing against nuclear? They're complementary, and both are needed to displace fossil fuels: solar providing energy for homes & distributed applications, nuclear for power-dense sources to run industry.
But in fact they are. Not necessarily the state, but there are a lot of people out there who apparently think it's ok to destroy a desert ecosystem (hey, it's a desert, nothing important there), or fill up a nice view with wind turbines, in pursuit of supposedly green energy.
As for the other part, what's so hard about calling a state by its right name, or a recognized abbreviation if you're too lazy to type, instead of those nasty two-letter codes?
|
I'm from LA, CA, and I don't mind. This is a very weak critique on your part that diminishes your overall argument. Instead of "taking offense" and attacking your opponent over details that aren't germane to the thread, how about sticking to a principled defense of your POV?
I think the "covering NV in PV" argument is also specious. I think it is mostly mentioned because the square footage of the state roughly matches the energy requirements of 100% PV use in the USA (at 15% efficient?). You can argue that it is because of the amount of desert that NV has, but CA, AZ, and NM also have a lot of desert, so maybe they can give up some land too.
I'm against nuclear energy because I don't trust it's track record in the USA and I don't hear nuclear energy proponents explaining solutions to the classic problems of nuclear waste and proliferation at the *beginning* of their advocacy. If you can find a way of processing nuclear waste so that all the leftovers can be released back into the environment, then we can talk. If you propose to store the waste for any length beyond 100 years, then I will reject your solution. I don't see
any government as capable of being stable for long enough to steward the "1000 years or more" waste dump sites like Yucca Mountain.
CarloSW2