Ahh yes, the persnicity problem. The marginal eco-damage (the damaged caused by using 1 more kWhr) from neucelar power is much smaller than the damage caused by isnstalling a solar panel. What the eco-minded to do? (This is not scarcasm. Its a serious question of marginal damage from a dirty source vs. the start up damage from a clean source.)
I'd suggest that about the only way to cause less damage is to use no electricity, I cant think of anythig much less harmfull than solar power. Except some kind of orbital power station but then you need a distribution grid which you don't if we all roof our homes with solar panels. Although in reality i suspect in reality the distribution grid will alwys be necessary for industry and emergencies if nothing else.
yeah i guess ill never use electricity. as long as i had music, food, and grass, id be fine with anything
They don't store electricity, thats a huge problem we cant store electricity very well. Power stations have to increase or reduce their output to match demand.
ouch. umm no electricity is fine for me. but is there any good ways to preserve food without electricity? ive heard of an indian method of putting a small jar into a big jar and filling the gap with moist sand and it keep food fresh?? is this real and are there any other methods what about nuclear power? it sounds nice, but too harsh and what to do with the buzzy waste
Nuclear power is a very bad idea, although it has it's advantages, if it goes wrong it goes very wrong, just look at Chernobyl.
As long as you don't cut down any forests to build them. There is lots of sunshine in the southwestern United States.