|
East of Broken Bow | I agree with this.
If the goal is to reduce CO2 levels, why in the world do you replace a field of a crop that takes CO2 out of the air and puts out O2? To meet the goal, wouldn't it be far better to put the solar panels in places that already are devoid of plant life?
If you REALLY wanted the most effective CO2 reduction, you would leave as many acres in plant life (crops) and build nuclear power plants. Nuclear produces power with the smallest 'footprint' in terms of acres of land altered/diverted for the power produced. Even better if it would be the plants that would produce power while being fueled with the nuclear waste we already are spending money on storing in bunkers. They would be able to produce power day and night whether the wind blows or not, and create no new waste, it also drastically reduces the radioactivity of the waste that was used for fuel. Seems like a win-win-win-win situation, but from what I see the powers that be don't seem to want a simple solution like that.
That, and I'm waiting for the day when someone does a study and 'discovers' that solar panels are harmful to the environment. | |
|
Solar vs corn
