"deposited far from human habitation"
Which is not really a solution.
Solar is at $.029/wH now.
Stop the nuclear power non-sense. Stop the coal power non-sense. All of this is obsolete technology now. Both have disastrous and costly consequences.
Solar is at $.029/wH now.
Stop the nuclear power non-sense. Stop the coal power non-sense. All of this is obsolete technology now. Both have disastrous and costly consequences.
Going pure solar and wind in the US would require several hundred thousand square kilometers of photovoltaic panels. More for the windmills if you can't build them all out at sea.
Aside from the cost running in to the trillions, you need so much steel and concrete that the emissions produced by those ingredients being made (remember steel in particular requires coal) that the overall emissions from such a project are, let's say, non-negligible.
I'm afraid even visionaries like Elon Musk know that renewables are only part of the solution. Solar and wind's energy output per area is just too small, even before you consider their consistency drawbacks.
Molten salt looks cool but it's not prime time for that yet, and certainly not .029/wH. If we want to reduce emissions now while waiting for better technology to be made, nuclear is as viable an option as any. It's been a shame here to see Germany go backwards and shut down its nuclear plants for new coal ones.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
The options for base-load are: nuclear, gas, oil, coal, dammed rivers. Pick one. Of that set, I prefer nuclear.