Build nuke plants and ration fuel are two examples of very effective solutions.
Not exact matches
The 72 - megawatt array would benefit from existing transmission lines and a substation
built for the never - used
nuke plant.
Four Westinghouse AP1000 (Gen III)
nuke plants are now being
built (two in Georgia, two in South Carolina).
Worse yet, no one ever
built a demonstration AP1000
nuke plant to prove they really are passively safe.
If the USA had taken Hansen's advice back in the late 1980's and gone on a crash program of
building next generation
nukes there was probably a chance we could be exporting that technology now to China and India and it might have prevented the commissioning of many of the new coal power
plants they are
building.
Building as many more
nuke power
plants as we can manage will help people.
I recall John McCain proposed
building 30 or more
nuke plants as part of his 2008 campaign, but America rejected that.
We can
build more
nukes, wind farms, geothermal electric
plants, etc..
IF private investors want to
build multi-billion dollar
nuke plants, fine, but the nuclear lobby has been feeding at the trough for far too long.
There's a slim chance that if our nation pulled in one direction that we could get a decent portion of our electric generation out of new
nuke plants 6 - 10 years from now if we start
building like crazy now.
Avoiding looking at it completely is, in my opinion, analogous to strident opposition to nuclear power
plants, hoping for some (physically unlikely) breakthrough in completely clean energy which can substitute for
nukes and coal in scale and continuity, all the while new coal
plants get
built.