You don't. Solar panels pollute in their manufacture, and they pollute in their disposal. As a life-cycle equation, it has been only over the last couple of years that the energy out has surpassed the energy in. It is government subsidies that make solar power cost-effective, and the fact that the really large solar farm have not yet approached the end of their useful lives.

Nuclear power is a matter of political will - at the most practical level, disposal of the waste is quite simple via

a) Breeder-reactors reducing spent fuel pellets, and tripling the life of any given unit of fissile material.
b) Considering that there are well over 1,000 underground test sites in Nevada, any one of which could contain very nearly all the nuclear waste at every power plant in the US and elsewhere;
c) And those same underground domes will be radioactive for the next 30,000 years or so anyway.

The issue is transport to said location. That is, political will.

Fossil Fuel plants create carbon dioxide in large amounts.

Wind Farms require acreage, which is in limited supply, but otherwise are comparatively cheap, effective and very long-lasting. Life-cycle cost-per-watt is far and away the cheapest of the lot.

Pick your poison. In terms of generating large amounts of unusable waste that cannot be recycled using present technology, Solar is the winner by a massive margin. It just hasn't gotten there yet.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA