Skip to main content

View Diary: Solar Energy Cheaper than Coal? (351 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  look at the big picture to judge costs (0+ / 0-)

    the big difference between solar power and conventional power is that the costs of the former are borne entirely by the consumer. we still pay enormous costs for traditional power sources, just not directly.

    fossil fuel companies get $10-20 billion in subsidies every year, mostly in the form of tax breaks. and that doesn't even include the environmental and health costs. granted, there are environmental concerns in manufacturing solar panels, but they are not consumptive (unlike gasoline).

    nuclear power requires enormous security, in two forms. first, they must be secured against attack or sabotage. second, the US secures nuclear plants against lawsuits. as a private enterprise, nuclear is a loser - plants are completely uninsurable - so if another three mile island (or worse) happens, there's no recourse against the operator.

    imagine a nationwide network of solar panels, providing power by day and recharging fuel cells for nighttime power. no terrorism risk, no risk of running out of energy, and far fewer toxins spewing into the air.

    freedom isn't free, but it isn't dumb either.

    by astro on Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 09:29:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site