This story is unavailable.

Your article is a little deceiving, well very deceiving. To provide enough energy for a place like Los Angeles, you would need half of CA for Solar and probably all of CA for wind, vs a single nuclear plant. When you add in land cost, and loss of land productivity along with network infrastructure, Solar and wind become very expensive, not to mention the impact on the environment displaced by these land hogs. While the OPEX for Solar is low, which is where your numbers come from, the CAPEX is enormous when put to the larger scale. Hydro is by far the most productive. For solar to work, it needs to be integrated into new development, with a focus on net 0 development. Ironically, densely populated urban areas are the ones creating the challenge for solar, as urban surface area to population density is low. Reality is, we need a sound mix of resources, with the first obligation to wean ourselves 100% form foreign fossil fuels. Something the Obama Admin did not do, as foreign oil actually became a larger percentage of our overall energy mix. The best source yet still may be blue-green energy, which is a net o power supply that does not require fresh water, uses no land mass, and can be used as a food source for a population out of control. Additionally, we need to put money into carbon recapture tech that converts airborne carbon into biofuel mass.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.