Flaming the fire of the solar vs nuclear debate: Fukushima


Proponents on both sides of the fence will argue feverishly about how the benefits of their chosen energy preference are better for the environment and the economy. Fukushima put a damper on the arguments for nuclear and the solar community is coming out full force to remind everyone about it.

Case in point: this infographic by our friends at 1bog. In it, you’ll see some of key points that make their argument strong in a hypothetical format. Some may consider it unfair to look back with 20/20 hindsight and say “shouldacoulda” but one can’t help to wonder if the situation would be completely different had Japan embraced solar power earlier.

Click to enlarge.

Written by JD Rucker

+JD Rucker is Editor at Soshable, a Social Media Marketing Blog. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and founder of both Judeo Christian Church and Dealer Authority. He drinks a lot of coffee, usually in the form of a 5-shot espresso over ice. Find him on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.

Related posts
  • In my opinion, there’s no real contest between nuclear and solar. Everyone would/could/should go solar if they possibly could. The fact of the matter is that there probably isn’t enough solar equipment and trained technicians in the world right now to fully equip everyone with solar even if everyone who wants it could afford it.
    Also: nuclear power plants (like the one at Fukushima) were built at a time (1970s) when they needed power and solar wasn’t an option (again – it’s still not a viable worldwide, mass solution).
    Now, this isn’t an excuse, and this doesn’t mean that we as a planet shouldn’t be looking for more environmentally-friendly forms of energy production. It just means that, at the time, solar wouldn’t have solved the problem. Countering the shutdown of nuclear plants by building more solar farms and putting more solar on private buildings would be a great way to do something good for the planet.

  • Anonymous

    lol, wow thats some pretty cool stuff when you think about it Wow.


  • Jeff

    Might as well have compared Nuclear to Fairy Farts for all the good the latter could serve as base load for an entire country.

  • Quarryman333

    obviously solar is a much better solution environmentally, but its just not a viable option yet. If you look at the effectiveness of existing solar panels from a physics standpoint, they just are not very efficient or economically viable. Nuclear plants are not very dangerous in themselves, provided they are not struck by a tsunami. Nuclear power is a much better option, at least until the technology behind solar panels improves sufficiently.

  • Menellom

    All of the nuclear power plants in the world only produce about 7% of the energy we consume each year. All of the solar plants in the world only produce about a third of that. Coal oil and gas provide 85%. The idea that we can somehow ween ourselves off of fossil fuels WITHOUT utilizing nuclear power is laughable.

  • Now if only it were possible to throw money like that at, say, poly-well research….

  • Debates between these two had their own reasons. But for me, I go to the solar. That’s my own opinion.

  • Thanks for the support of the post!