A 1 GW solar power plant capable of baseload operation (by the use of molten salt storage) in an agreeable climate such as Spain would cover something like 100 sq kms. Where would Japan find the space to put 50 or more of these things? Considering the Japanese climate they would need to be substantially larger than those in Spain. Germany has installed something like 15 GW of solar PV. But the capacity factor is only about 12% so the amount of electricity generated is about the same as a modern 1.65GW Areva EPR nuclear reactor. Even worse, the peak output of German solar PV in winter was hardly worth having. The cost has been in excess of 50 billion euros - at least ten times as expensive as nuclear. Solar, wind etc will have some role, but the biggest winner from no nuclear would almost certainly be more coal and gas. Read David Mackay's Sustainable Energy - without the hot air http://www.withouthotair.com/
I would love to know where you are getting your information but Morocco or even Algeria do not provide a huge amount of coal to the UK, get your hands on the IEA Stats for 2010 Coal its well worth a look.
LOL. A coworker's girlfriend once wrote a song called "Wouldn't It Be Better If we All Just Rode Horses?". The genie is out of the bottle. The world is not going back to pre-industrial revolution living conditions, no matter how much the tree-huggers wish it.
Another massive Earthquake and few more nuclear reactors/plants explosion will send the world back to pre-industrial revolution living conditions.
You better hurry then idiot to post a few hundred more panic posts before you lose the internet. Better paint up a sign saying "The World is Over in Thirty Days" befoe you lose electricity. You go boy. By the way, do you live in an asylum or is this just an act ?
See the Jevons Paradox. 7 billion people roasting meat over a wood fire would foul the atmosphere quicker and more assuredly than simultaneously turning the ignition on every car every built.
After sometime world population will be 6 Billion people. Wood fire smoke is not harmful to human beings if inhaled. Also wood fire does not pollute/damage the atmosphere/climate/environment.
"Woodsmoke in the urban environment is a major source of aggravation and ill health for many people, especially those with allergy or chemical sensitivity. The toxicity of wood smoke is well known, it contains many carcinogenic substances such as aldehydes, dioxin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), carbon monoxide and ultrafine particulate matter i.e. particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The problem with these ultrafine particles is that when they are less than 2.5 microns in diameter they are retained in the human lungs and have been shown to cause increases in morbidity and mortality.In developing countries, woodsmoke has had a serious effect on human health as some wood stoves emit smoke to indoor air. "Studies in Bogota, South America, have shown that such exposure reduces lung function, especially in children, and was responsible for a large proportion of obstructive airway disease. In Mexico City where there is also a huge motor exhaust pollution problem, women exposed to woodsmoke were shown to have a higher risk of contracting chronic bronchitis and obstructive airway disease than those who were not exposed to woodsmoke. In Africa, cooking with wood greatly increased the risk of stillbirth, while indoor air in homes with woodstoves was found to have higher levels of mutagenic material." http://www.asehaqld.org.au/index.ph...smoke&catid=42:air-quality-articles&Itemid=57