renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide.

Before stating my conclusion, I will first make rebuttals. I did not claim that nuclear was a safe source of energy- no source of energy is completely safe. The only point I wished to raise was that the danger of nuclear power is often overstated. Yes, of course Fukushima was dangerous, but as mentioned at least 1000.00 msV of dosage is necessary to even " cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people". Still harmful, but not nearly as much as one might think- and this was a Level 5 nuclear disaster. Most are much less severe. As humans, we willingly take risks, as long as we believe the benefits outweigh them. Pro claims that as nuclear power plants increase in number, the number of accidents will as well, but the opposite can also be just as easily claimed. As we advance as a society and look to our past to learn what to do to stop accidents, could it not be suggested that the number of accidents will decrease, despite increasing numbers of nuclear reactors? There are certainly risks involved with nuclear energy, but the benefits: the cheaper costs for more electricity compared with other sources: certainly appear to outweigh them. I apologize for not linking directly to the source that stated that solar panel production has led to the production of tens of millions of pounds of waste, as I was attempting to not bloat my sources list. Clicking through a link on the source I provided leads to [1], stating "The state records show the 17 companies, which had 44 manufacturing facilities in California, produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water from 2007 through the first half of 2011." And again, as mentioned, I brought up the environmental effects of renewable sources not to claim that they are worse than non-renewable sources, but simply to point out that no source is perfect. And so the question is always whether the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in all ways, not whether one causes environmental damage or not. Pro failed to rebut the points made that all renewable sources limited geographically, and that they are too limited in production (for wind and solar) to be successfully utilized globally. Pro also failed to rebut the points about the economic unviability of renewable sources, which is an important factor in deciding the "best solution", given that economic considerations are an important part of the motivations of both the government and individual persons. As well, the MIT study cited does not state that "geothermal could power the entire world", as Pro claimed, but that the possibly extractable portion was about 2 000 times the annual consumption of primary energy in the United States. America is not the world. Putting that aside, the study does not take in account the issues involved with transporting that energy across the continent, as since geothermal energy is geographically limited, not every location would have access to it. This transport would likely require the use of fossil fuels, which could lead to it being unviable in locations far from a EGS reservoir. Certainly, money should be invested in renewable sources of energy. If in the future, say, efficient batteries for wind and solar power were created, renewable sources could become the best solution for energy in this world. But at the moment, with so many countries across the globe terribly poor, and the remainder much too stingy with their money, renewable sources of energy are not economically viable. Even putting aside economic considerations, our technology has not advanced to the point to allow us to replace non-renewable sources with renewable sources completely. In this way, renewable sources quite simply cannot be the best solution for energy world-wide. [1] http://business.financialpost.com...