I think part of the problem on energy (nuclear) debate is people can't grasp the scale.

[Statistical]

Often I hear people say just build solar or wind instead of nuclear.

Well lets look at that.

The good:
http://sustainablespc.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/desoto-county-building-nation%E2%80%99s-largest-solar-facility/

Here is the LARGEST solar plant under construction in the United States it will be completed in late 2010. Total time and cost is 1.5 years and $173.5 million.


The plant will have a peak output of 25MW (roughly 25,000 times larger than the average home solar array).
The estimated annual output is 42,000 MWh (megawatt hours).
Another way to look at it is 42 million kWh (your electric bill is in kWh killowatt hours)

Next Generation Solar Energy Center
Peak power: 25MW
Annual Generation: 42,000 MWh
Construction Cost: $173.5 million

Sound cheap compared to a nuclear reactor right? $173.5 million vs $8 billion.

The bad:
The number $8B gets thrown around but that is total cost for 2 reactors in Georgia.
The reactors are AP1000s (Advanced Passive 1000) by Westinghouse and have a peak output of 1150MW each.
The annual generation is about 9,268,080Mwh of annual generation each (220x this solar plant).

AP1000
Peak power: 1150MW
Annual Generation: 9,268,080 MWh
Construction Cost: $8,000 million

So while $173.5 million for the largest solar plant in the United States looks "cheap" it only generates 1/220th of the annual power from a single AP1000 reactor.

To get an equivalent amount of power would require 220 of 25MW solar plants. 220 x $173.5 million = $36 billion or about 9x the construction cost of the AP1000 in Georgia for the same amount of power.

The Ugly:
Fossil fuels generated 1.6 BILLION MWh of electrical power last year. Note this doesn't include fossil fuels for transportation and heating. This is simply electrical power.

If you could build 1000 of these Solar plants PER YEAR every single year it would take 38 years to replace just the fossil fuels used for electrical power. Our planet doesn't have 4 decades. Also building 1000 giant solar plants a year isn't even something we are close to considering. That also doesn't account for population growth, increased energy demands, or things like how to power electric vehicles.

Just visualize that for a second:
That is building 1000 of the largest solar plants in the United States EVERY SINGLE YEAR nonstop for 38 straight years.
A new giant solar plant going online every 9 hours without a pause for four decades.

Solar & Wind are vital part of the solution for ending fossil fuels but the idea we can break away from coal, oil, natural gas without nuclear is simply not based on reality.

The reality is it will take a massive rollout of wind, solar AND nuclear AND a reduction in energy use AND it will still take a couple decades to substantially reduce fossil fuels burned for electrical power. This is what Obama understands and people who want to wish the problem away don't want to think about.

[NightWatcher]

1. we need to work to decentralize the power grid

instead of solar farms, continue to develop pv cells where each house can lessen it's pull from the grid. Live near the plains or other windy places, put up a small (or large) turbine. Defray your heating bills by thinking about installing a geothermal heating system. Lessen the cost of heating your water for showers by putting up a solar water heater.

Sure it's going to cost money, but so is everything else. Let's use a "greening" to get people back to work.

[Statistical]

5. Regardless of where the PV panels go the scale is the same.

Another way to look at is it would take adding 20 million roof top solar arrays every year nonstop for 38 years to get the same amount of power. Factor in lower efficiencies, lower solar insolation in many parts of the country, increasing energy demand, and population growth and the reality is it will take much more than 38 years "optimistic" number.

25 MW solar plant or 25MW spread across 25,000 homes the scale is still the same.

[bananas]

91. self-delete

DU gave an error when I posted it, so I reposted it.

[bananas]

92. There are so many problems with your OP

First, you've picked one of the (currently) most expensive renewables.
Second, that PV plant will go online this year, it will take about ten years to build a new reactor.
So a more valid comparison might be a PV plant going online ten years from - but by then PV prices will have dropped dramatically. But PV will be mainly for rooftops, the big solar farms will be mainly solar thermal. So you should compare PV roofing tiles in ten years to a nuclear reactor + asphalt roofing tiles.

Wind and solar are growing exponentially, but you use linear growth.
They are doubling every 2-3 years, at that rate they would provide all global energy in 20-25 years, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=230177&mesg_id=230254
We don't even have to do that to solve global warming, one of the best analysis is linked in my sigline: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bananas/826

Nuclear advocates put blinders on about the scale of the problems with nuclear energy.
It was only a couple of years ago the Bush EPA was forced to accept the National Academy of Sciences recommendation that waste be contained for a million years; before that, the standard was 10,000 years.
Nuclear waste is an intercivilizational problem, read http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/491/

Nuclear weapons proliferation is another problem which advocates have blinders on.
They go beyond simply not grasping the scale of the problem, they pretend it's not a problem.
Al Gore said, "For the eight years that I spent in the White House every nuclear weapons proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a reactor programme." http://www.green-blog.org/2009/03/18/al-gore-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer-to-our-energy-and-climate-crisis/
Some nuclear advocates think every country should have nuclear weapons, ignoring the failure rate of deterrence: www.nuclearrisks.org
and the global nuclear winter from even a small nuclear war: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter

The problems Toyota is having with brakes is an example of the kind of unexpected problems that are completely missed by the nuclear safety analysis and risk assessments. Even the new reactor designs can have catastrophic failures on a scale of Chernobyl or worse.

[Statistical]

99. You really think they can keep doubling ever 2-3 years for 25 years?

Law of large numbers would seem to argue otherwise.
Growth rate tends to decline as raw numbers increase.

It is pretty easy to double capacity when capacity is tiny. It isn't so easy when doubling would mean adding thousands more MW of capacity every week.

Commercial nuclear power is not a proliferation issue.
Every nuclear state achieved nuclear weapons WITHOUT using commercial nuclear power.
US, Russia, UK, India, China, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea.
Every single one used specialized test reactors to produce plutonium.
Commercial reactors are ill-suited for generating weapons grade material.

Hell we obtained enough plutonium to kill a million people in a war A DECADE before they broke ground on first commercial power reactor.

The technology to make an atomic bomb is not that difficult.



Our first weapons material producing reactor (or more technically "nuclear pile") was downright primitive. It was simply a block of graphite with holes drilled for aluminum rods containing uranium to be inserted. Uranium emitted neutrons and graphite slowed them down enough to cause a tiny amount of fission to occur. Heat was dealt with by pumping water around the uranium slugs and using heat exhanger with nearby river. The reactor was built by hand with a small crew (for secrecy) who understood nothing about fission in about a month.

That nuclear pile gave us enough plutonium to produce the first atomic test "Trinity", the "Fat Man" weapon as well as countless test weapons.

The idea that in the 21st century Iran, North Korea, South Africa, or anyone other country who wants too can't build a nuclear bomb is just silly. Do you honestly think Americans are that vastly superior to scientists all over the world? We figured it out in 1950s and didn't even have a roadmap (or proof it was possible). The idea that Iran or another power can't figure out nuclear weapons on their own is just something people tell themselves to sleep better at night.

[bananas]

107. They don't have to

For example, in this analysis, they only have to reach 4TW wind, 5TW solar thermal, and 2TW PV over 40 years:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

The full solution to global warming, from Climate Progress
Posted by bananas in Environment/Energy
Tue Mar 31st 2009, 11:20 AM

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)

<snip>

I also agree with McKinsey Global Institute’s 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.

<snip>

This is what the entire planet must achieve:

* 1 wedge of albedo change through white roofs and pavement (aka “soft geoengineering) — see “Geoengineering, adaptation and mitigation, Part 2: White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution“
* 1 wedge of vehicle efficiency — all cars 60 mpg, with no increase in miles traveled per vehicle.
* 1 of wind for power — one million large (2 MW peak) wind turbines
* 1 of wind for vehicles –another 2000 GW wind. Most cars must be plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles.
* 3 of concentrated solar thermal (aka solar baseload)– ~5000 GW peak.
* 3 of efficiency — one each for buildings, industry, and cogeneration/heat-recovery for a total of 15 to 20 million GW-hrs. A key strategy for reducing direct fossil fuel use for heating buildings (while also reducing air conditioning energy) is geothermal heat pumps.
* 1 of solar photovoltaics — 2000 GW peak
* 1/2 wedge of nuclear power– 350 GW
* 2 of forestry — End all tropical deforestation. Plant new trees over an area the size of the continental U.S.
* 1 wedge of WWII-style conservation, post-2030

Here are additional wedges that require some major advances in applied research to be practical and scalable, but are considered plausible by serious analysts, especially post-2030:

* 1 of geothermal plus other ocean-based renewables (i.e. tidal, wave, and/or ocean thermal)
* 1 of coal with biomass cofiring plus carbon capture and storage — 400 GW of coal plus 200 GW biomass with CCS
* 1/2 wedge of next generation nuclear power — 350 GW
* 1/2 wedge of cellulosic biofuels for long-distance transport and what little aviation remains in 2050 — using 8% of the world’s cropland .
* 1 of soils and/or biochar– Apply improved agricultural practices to all existing croplands and/or “charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass.” Both are controversial today, but may prove scalable strategies.

That should do the trick. And yes, the scale is staggering.

<snip>

Note to all: Do I want to build all those nuclear plants. No. Do I think we could do it without all those nuclear plants. Definitely. Therefore, should I be quoted as saying we “must” build all those nuclear plants, as the Drudge Report has, or even that I propose building all those plants? No. Do I think we will have to swallow a bunch of nuclear plants as part of the grand bargain to make this all possible and that other countries will build most of these? I have no doubt. So it stays in “the solution” for now.

<snip>

There's no single "silver bullet" to stopping global warming, building lots of reactors isn't going to stop global warming, there's still much more that would have to be done. Turns out, nuclear will at best only be a small part of the solution, and it's not needed at all.

[bananas]

109. Commercial nuclear power is a serious proliferation issue

The reason for the NPT and IAEA is to require intrusive monitoring to prevent proliferation from commercial nuclear power.
In Bush's "Nukes for Mangoes" deal with India, half of India's commercial nuclear power stations are re-categorized as "military" and placed off-limits to IAEA inspectors.
Iran's enrichment facilities can be used for both fuel and weapons.

Al Gore said, "For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program."

It's because of the NPT that proliferation has remained so low.
Bush and the neo-cons tried to weaken and subvert the NPT.
When Bush claimed Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, it was the IAEA inspectors who spoke out and said it wasn't true.
So the neocons faked up some "evidence".
Joe Wilson exposed their yellowcake letter fraud.
They tried to destroy his credibility, and exposed his wife Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent, "Part of her work involved ensuring that Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons."
They were going to try to do the same thing to Iran.

Will we have idiot Republican presidents in the future? Yes, we will. They could continue where Bush left off. If the NPT goes, the whole house of cards falls down. Bush was ready to nuke Iran, that was prevented by the checks and balances in our system, right here on DU there are people who say that Iran should develop a nuclear arsenal, the more countries there are with nuclear weapons, the more likely it becomes that one of them will get a crazy leader like Bush who will decide to use nukes.

[leveymg]

2. Sure. The scale - here's a million dollars on a pallet. Try to imagine 8000 on them, and that's the

scale of this federal give-away to the nuclear industry.

[Winterblues]

6. That is what went to Iraq

8 billion dollars in hundred dollar bills all shrink wrapped and palletized and then "just disappeared".

[leveymg]

8. + 8B. (Don't forget the interest, or Poland)

[Winterblues]

3. Look up Spain's Solar usage.

I believe they are providing more than fifty percent of their power from Solar.

[Statistical]

9. Try 2.9%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Spain

What makes it even worse is that Spain is smaller than the United States and uses less energy per capita.

If we magically transported all the solar panels from Spain to the US it would make up only ~0.5% of electrical generation in the United States.


Nobody is saying solar isn't a good idea and we should attempt to grow solar usage even faster than Spain but the reality is even if we adopted solar power at a rate 10x that of Spain it would take 50 years to replace fossil fuels. 10 TIMES.

[bahrbearian]

43. 12% in 2010

from wikipedia
Spain is one of the most attractive countries for the development of solar energy, as it has more available sunshine than any other European country. The Spanish government is committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010 with an installed solar generating capacity of 3000 megawatts (MW).<1> Spain is the fourth largest manufacturer in the world of solar power technology and exports 80 percent of this output to Germany.<2>. Spain added a record 2 GW of solar power in 2008. Total Solar power in Spain was 3 GW by end of 2009. Solar energy has covered 2.8% of the electricity demand in 2009.<3>

How many nuke plants would they have to build get 12%
How long would it take to build a nuke plant?

[Statistical]

50. Key word "TARGET". That is their goal and they will not meet it.

Solar met 2.8% of demand in 2009. That is the reality.

Spain will come no where close to generating 12% by Solar in 2010. Also I think your number that I corrected was 50%.

You claim: Spain generates 50% of electricity from solar.
The reality: Spain generates 2.8% of electricity from solar.

As far as how many nuclear plants.....
http://www.indexmundi.com/spain/electricity_consumption.html
Spain's consumption is 276.1 billion kWh
12% = 33 billion kwh

An AP100 produces 9.3 billion kWh annually (at 0.92 capacity factor) so it would take roughly 4. Given that US is leader in capacity factor and they likely would have lower capacity factor initially you could say 5 reactors to be safe.

They could be constructed in 5 years. So they wouldn't meet the "2010 target" but Spain has about 0% chance of hitting that target with Solar.

[Codeine]

68. You believe incorrectly. nt

[renegade000]

4. thanks for the numbers!

i'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy, but we should consider all the options. limited construction of nuclear plants is probably a good stopgap measure to provide non-greenhouse gas generating energy while our renewable energy infrastructure is developed and made more efficient.

[mrcheerful]

7. But what are you going to do about the Nuclear waste? There lays the problem with nuclear power

it has a deadly waste by product with a long long life span. Then you also have the problem with what to do if said nuclear power plant has an accident or a screw up by human errors. Again just getting rid of the nuclear waste of the current plants we have on line now is expensive and troubling as well as running out of places to safely store the wastes.

[DCBob]

46. Statistical's "stats" make total sense but waste is the "killer".. literally..

Without a better way to manage waste, nuclear is a very risky way to go.

[DCBob]

47. Maybe a solution from M$ Bill...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.html?hpt=C1

[Liberal In Texas]

56. Right. Don't leave future generations with "Obama Debt" but it's OK to leave them

tons of hot waste that won't degrade for thousands of years.

Nukes are not a solution.

[Confusious]

71. The worst waste decays

in less then 100 years.

But there are new ways to burn it for power too.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

[zipplewrath]

61. Recycle it

The vast majority by weight (not volume) can be processed to remove the most hazardous components and reformed into fuel for reactors. The vast majority of the waste by volume is relatively benign materials (gloves, rags, boots, etc.) that can be rendered "safe" through processing including incineration. Some laws would have to change because right now such processing is illegal (because the processing isn't all that different than what is done to collect weapons grade material).

And really, compare the hazardous nature of coal ash, which contains various toxins, and the Mercury and other metals that come out the smoke stacks, not to mention the damage of coal mining, and nuclear doesn't look nearly as "risky". Take all the deaths one can track to Chernobyl and TMI and it won't come close to the deaths from mining coal alone. Then throw in the deaths to people with respiratory diseases that come from the polluted air, and nuclear will look down right peachy.

I'm not a big nuclear fan, and there are good reasons to be concerned about nuclear plants being built "willy nilly". But waste is the least of the concerns.

[SidDithers]

10. K&R...

thanks for the perspective.

Sid

[Fumesucker]

11. People do not want nuke plants in their backyards..

It may be irrational, but that's the way a lot of people feel about it.

That basically means that every new nuke plant is going to be a huge political fight that's going to take a lot of time and make the lawyers wealthy beyond the most avaricious dreams of Croesus.

There are various forms of reality and the political realities are just as daunting and often even more complex and intractable as the technical ones.

[Statistical]

15. All the 18 planned new reactors are at existings sites.

The original sites for most nuclear energy generation stations were designed for 4 to 8 reactors. Most only have 2 online. Without approving a single new site we could bring 30-40 more reactors online.

The $8B in loan guarantees that started this firestorm on DU.... it is for building 2 new reactors at a site that ALREADY has 2 nuclear reactors. The was originally designed for 8 reactors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant


Google map if you are interested.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.143005,-81.765747&spn=0.01,0.01&t=h&q=33.143005,-81.765747

[Fumesucker]

22. I honestly don't think that's going to stop political opposition to more reactors..

As more and more reactors are being shown to have contaminated their surroundings political opposition to reactors is going to do nothing but increase.

[Kablooie]

24. Personally I'd love to have one in my backyard. I'd rent the land for a mint and move somewhere else

[Fumesucker]

33. So you wouldn't really want it next to where you live.

Your objection is noted..

[Kablooie]

62. Well if it were in my backyard it would have to be really small one.

I could put it next to the bird bath, I guess.

[Fumesucker]

63. Glow in the dark birds..

That would be different..

Edited for speling.

[JDPriestly]

12. You have not included the external costs to the environment

including the cost of covering the risk of an accident, storing the nuclear waste, educating future generations about what the facility is and its dangers, and restoring the site for other uses after it is no longer a nuclear reactors site. These are just a few of the external costs that are never counted when economists look at nuclear power.

Put small solar units on private homes. Americans can become self-sufficient to a great degree when it comes to providing for their energy needs. That, in addition to a few large energy-producing plants will improve the situation far more than adding yet another energy source that makes money for its owners in the short term and pushes huge, long-term external costs on the public (who will of course also pay the profits of the nuclear energy company).

No to nuclear energy. It is not safe. It is not the way to go. We need to focus on developing solar energy. Come to California and then talk about nuclear energy. We had a serious problem with nuclear contamination in the mountains near Los Angeles some years ago.

Nuclear plants have accidents, and when they do, the accidents can have very serious repercussions -- for which the owners of the plants do not pay. Again, nuclear plants are corporate welfare. The profits go to the investors. The costs go to the public. No, no, no.

[Donnachaidh]

14. wonder how many of these nuke lovers would agree to them being built in their neighborhoods?

It's so darned wonderful let THEM live in the shadow of the reactor units. Better yet - let's build them in the neighborhoods of the people who will make the PROFIT from these ticking time bombs -- the CEOS of Georgia Power, etc.

We seem to have far too many pro-nuke cheerleaders here who totally disregard the true costs of nuclear power.

[Statistical]

19. Who builds a power plant (any power plant ) in a neighborhood.

There is plenty of space at existing plants to build dozens more nuclear reactors.

None of which are located in anyone's backyard.

BTW: I grew up in Surry country in Virginia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surry_Nuclear_Power_Plant

I guess you could say the plant was "in my backyard" although that would be a stretch.

[bahrbearian]

27. Three Mile Island

[RC]

44. Maybe you would like to live down wind from a coal fired power plant instead?

[yurbud]

96. if you think those are the only choices, you might be a republican.

[hunter]

88. I'd go for it.

I'd like to see the existing natural gas powered monstrosities in my "neighborhood" gone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Math is hard.

[Donnachaidh]

16. epsecially for the nuke lovers that disregard the 24000 year half life of uranium 239.

:eyes:

[SidDithers]

18. Oh, sweet delicious irony...nt

Sid

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Or the anti-nuke coal lovers.

Who disregard the 24,000 year half-life of the uranium 239 in coal ash.

[dionysus]

49. !

ROFL
:thumbsup:

[Confusious]

73. Or the 5,700 year lifespan of carbon 14

That is already in your body, made by the earth, which is trying to kill you.

Which is more radioactive then U239, BTW.

[Occulus]

17. We *really* need to figure out fusion power.

There are a number of projects ongoing that propose to do just that. My personal favorite is internal electrostatic containment, also known as the Polywell design. First proposed and developed by Dr. Robert Bussard, the IEC design produces an electrostatic potential well contained within a magnetic 'bottle'. Very oversimplified, boron-11 ions are fired into the core, where the electrostatic potential well squeezes them. Eventually they begin to fuse, and direct current is produced which can be fed directly into the power grid.

That's the basic idea, anyway.

The cost estimate is $200M from first design to the final prototype that produces net power. Currently, no fusion reactor design can so much as break even, and there are some questions that bremsstrahlung losses may make that impossible for the IEC design. Still, this is something we very badly need.

A working fusion reactor will spell the end of the fossil fuel era. For more information on the Polywell (and other designs), see the Talk-Polywell forums.

[mike_c]

20. I am MASSIVELY opposed to nuclear fission for power generation...

...but I fully agree with your numbers. Frankly, current renewables technology won't put much more than a dent in our present energy use trajectory. Barely even a small dent.

Fusion might, if we can ever develop the tech, I'm not holding my breath yet for a comprehensive, single technology replacement for fossil fuel dependency. And I don't think most sustainable solutions even come close to being actual solutions.

That only leaves one way out of this mess, and I'm convinced it is ultimately the way we will take, whether we like it or not. Reduced energy access and use. Like back to nineteenth century levels of energy access. I'm pretty convinced that is ultimately what will happen-- it's how we get there that matters now. With planning and preparation, we can replace energy intensive societal uses with less intensive alternatives. We might succeed if we make energy frugality an overriding social goal-- overriding as in NO policy or action should EVER be implemented if a lower energy alternative exists. NONE.

The other way to get there is, sadly, the more likely one-- with our heads firmly embedded in the sands of denial. That way lies collapse, starvation, social decay, and violence. Think the fall of the Roman Empire, on steroids. A thousand years of brutishness and darkness. Possibly the decline of the human species altogether-- a lot of bad things can happen during times like those.

[Statistical]

23. It is a shocking reality people don't want to accept.

We simply can not break the grip on fossil fuels in the medium term (20-30 years) without large scale power production and right now with current technology that is nuclear.

[jdlh8894]

29. There are6+ billion humans on this planet

IMHO we will be the next "fossil fuel" in a million years.The planet makes up it's mind and there is not a thing we can do about it.

[The2ndWheel]

25. It's not what we use, but how much we use

"Reduced energy access and use"

Which will never happen voluntarily, on mass scale. A person here and there, sure. Nobody gives a damn if you do so. Once more and more people have decreased access and use of energy though, that's when it becomes a problem, as society can't function that way, and the various institutions will basically try and force you to get back in the game, since those institutions require growth for their survival, which ultimately makes the big picture problems that much more complex to deal with.

[mike_c]

31. you've succinctly expressed why I think we'll get there via the hard way....

Not that either is easy, mind you, but denying the necessity for serious change will only make the change more awful when it inevitably comes. People will sell their children for access to the last drops of fossil fuels if they don't consciously decide to voluntarily reduce human energy consumption on a global scale. Since we can't even agree to widely held norms of behavior, such as "it's bad to put personal profit above collective needs," I don't have much faith in humankind's capacity for pulling our bacon out of the fire.

[blueworld]

26. Thanks for the numbers but IMO grasping "the scale" is part of the problem

Who says that we must convert over immediately from fossil fuels? As we do convert, who says we can only select one alternative option (ex. give up coal, use nuclear)?

Your numbers are impressive, but can you show me what would happen if all homes on the east coast used geothermal in addition to either solar or oil or propane? What happens if some of those families buy hybrid vehicles? If coal-generated power plants had to tie in to methane-fired plants or bio-diesel, how much would that drop the required coal input?

I have yet to see a truly comprehensive, progressive study with numbers outlining improvements between "here" and "there". All I see is that "all or nothing at all" mentality - we can't power the entire country as it stands right now on solar/wind so we MUST go nuclear.

I think the world will last long enough for us to make intelligent, safe, sustainable choices if we're more serious about energy than we are about filling the coffers of utility companies. IMO.

[Statistical]

34. No all or nothing menatility. You are missing the point.

We MUST substantially reduce greenhouse gases though.

We also need to do it sooner than later. Cutting CO2 emissions 50% 200 years into the future isn't going to cut it.

I am simply saying to stop producing ELECTRICAL power from fossil fuels (which still will result in LOTS of fossil fuels being used for transportation & heating) will require an utterly astronomical amount of new emission free generation.

Even building thousands of massive solar plants a year (we build 3 tiny ones last year) it will take decades. That is decades the planet doesn't have.


The only realistic way to substantially reduce greenhouse gases is an all of the above aproach
a) build out solar as fast as capacity allows
b) build out wind as fast as capacity allows
c) reduce consumption
d) increase efficiency everywhere it is economical to do so
e) build nuclear power as fast as production capacity allows

Even all of that working together will take 10-20 years to stop burning fossil fuels for electricity. Then we need to tackle all the fossil fuels burned for heating and transportation.
Converting 100 million cars to hydrogen or batteries will require ANOTHER massive increase in emission free generation.
Reducing heating from fossil fuels to geothermal heat pumps will require ANOTHER equally massive increase in emission free generation.

There is no doubt we can do it without nuclear in about 100 years. That is 100 years our planet doesn't have.

[krispos42]

28. Do we have enough fissionables for this?

Is the supply domestic or foreign? I.e., will we be waging foreign wars and occupying foreign countries to seize uranium as well as oil?

Do we have the uranium-enrichment capability to supply a drastic increase in nuclear reactors?

Uranium enrichment is an energy-intensive process... can we use renewables to power that process?

How much fissionable fuel could we get from nuclear disarmament? If we take out of circulation, say, 3,000 warheads from the US inventory, how much will that help our nuclear fuel supply?

Are these new reactors being proposed the kind that can run off of spend nuclear fuel? I understand that France has several special powerplants that run off of spend fuel from other, regular nuclear powerplants. This would presumebly help with the problem of long-term nuclear storage by reducing the amount of waste going into a landfill.

Water levels on many rivers are low, and some current reactors are having cooling problems. Is there enough water to reliably cool these reactors for their projected lifetime?


Important questions to consider.

[Statistical]

36. Supply - Yes. Enrichment - much less energy intensive now. Bombs into Fuel - already doing it

However yes there are important issues to consider.

Nuclear isn't the only solution or the complete solution it simply is part of the solution.

SOLAR + WIND + TIDAL + HYDRO + NUCLEAR + reduced consumption + increased energy efficiency = massive reduction in fossil fuels being burned.

It will take everything and carbon legislation and restrictions on coal (cheapest form of power) to save the planet.

[NashVegas]

30. And How Many Years Will It Take for the Nuclear Waste to Become Harmless?

The planet is better off suffering through many little "correcting" catastrophes than trying to absorb that which cannot ever be absorbed.

[court jester]

32. And what is the expected lifetime in years of the nuclear ap1000s you describe please? NT

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_lifespan_of_a_nuclear_power_plant

[Statistical]

37. 60+60. GenIII+ plants are designed for much longer operating lifecyles.

The Gen III+ plants are designed for longer operating life cycles.

The 40 year figure comes from 1950s era technology.
Plants built in the 1950s and 60s were certified for 40+40.
They starting hitting the 40 year mark in 1990s and were spun down, retrofitted and spun up.
About 2/3rds of them were recertified for another 40 meaning they will go offline around 2030-2040.

Not every plants gets the "second life". The plants conditions, safety record, etc all factor into determination to recertify. About 1/3 of the US plants were not certified for "second life".


The AP1000 is certified by NRC for 60 years operating life cycle. Then shutdown, retrofit, inspections, and testing. Then spin up for another 60 years. 60+60.

The Georgia plants could be online by 2016 and would last until 2076 and then if re-certified go until 2136.

[court jester]

39. Thanks very much NT

solar+wind+algae+biofuel
+skylights+12vdc+hamsters

[KittyWampus]

35. Human waste is a totally untapped resource that goes in the Green Column. Leaving it off your little

list is deceitful to the extreme.

[Robb]

41. Do you mean conservation, or poop?

Serious question. Although I'm giggling to get to type "poop." :D

[flamin lib]

84. This kind of commentary is completely unhelpful.

It's simply not nice to use words like deceitful when addressing a fellow DUer. Disagree with the OP, add your suggestions and take part in the conversation. Don't imply sinister motives like intentionally hiding information.

[court jester]

38. How many square miles is DeSoto? Mojave Solar park under construction is 9 Sq Mi

The Mojave Solar Park is a solar thermal power facility currently contracted to be constructed in the Mojave Desert in California. The facility is being constructed by Solel Inc and is designed to have a capacity of 553MW. Upon completion it will become the world's largest solar collection facility both in capacity and land size (nine square miles). The facility is being constructed for Pacific Gas and Electric in order to meet California's renewable energy laws requiring 20 percent of power provided be from renewable sources by 2010.<1>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Solar_Park

http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q3_2007/070725a.shtml

Funny, that photo you posted doesn't look like 9 Sq. Mi. but then looks

ARE

deceiving aren't they



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114135621AABp8c6

[Statistical]

40. I will run numbers with that plant it doesn't get much better.

I don't think ground has broke on MSP because of some regulatory issues so that is why I used DeSato.

Anyways a similar comparison:

http://renewableenergydev.com/red/solar-energy-mojave-solar-park-csp/

Mojave Solar Park
Peak output: 553 MW
Cost: $2 billion
Annual output: 1338 gigawatt hours (GWh) = 1,338,000 MWh.
Construction Time: 3 years

So this plant is bigger but the same scale issues apply although they do improve so (economies of scale).
It is roughly 20x as large as the Desoto plant and produces about 31x as much annual energy however it also costs 12x as much.

Compared to a single AP1000 it would take 7 of these ultra massive plants to produce the same amount of annual generation (and also take up 63 square miles of space).

Economics improve some but are still bad: 7 x $2b = $14B vs $4B.
So instead of it being 9x as expensive it is only 3.5x as expensive to build.

[court jester]

45. "So instead of it being 9x as expensive it is only 3.5x as expensive to build." Well it's only been

a few minutes and the cost factor has dropped by a factor of 5.5.

Impressive!

:bounce:

There's insurance savings that could maybe take another point off,
and don't forget that the Solar plant isn't going to have to be de
activated in 40 or 60 or 100 years. That's a factor.

perhaps. So when you factor in the whole "radiation is kinda bad" thingy,
for hundreds and hundreds of years, it's not so much of a slam dunk.
At least to me. Your Mileage May Vary!

Of course we can push off tomorrows problems on our not so great
grandchildren pretty much forever, and never have to see them pout!

:nopity:

[Statistical]

48. Um Solar plants last a LOT less than 40 or 100 years.

PV output drops by about 30% over their lifetime (about 30 years) plus panels "die" from defects, heat damage, environment, etc.
The lifespan of a solar plant is finite and less than that of a nuclear reactor.

The idea that you build a PV plant and it just lasts forever and generates infinite power is a myth or at best a simplification.

PV plants are built, have a finite lifespan and then are deconstructed. Now you can build a new plant in the same space (you can do same thing with nuclear, or coal for that matter) but then you have new construction costs.


So the economics between PV and nuclear aren't that dissimilar.

Both have very high construction costs.
Both are subject to very high lifetime interest costs (due to construction costs).
Both have very low marginal operating costs
Both have finite lifespans.

So in either plant the revenue from power generation over finite lifespan must = construction costs, lifetime interest costs, maintenance costs + decommissioning costs.

[kenny blankenship]

81. Plus they don't make electricity at night. So their peak output numbers are kinda misleading.

They can make that output figure at noon on a clear sunny day, but for half the day or in bad weather they're completely useless.

[Statistical]

83. Yeah the only thing that matters is annual generation (power) not peak output (energy).

Capacity factor for solar is about 0.20 in the best locations and about 0.15 is the worst ones.

That means annual output is roughly equal to:
annual power = 24 * 365 * 0.20 * peak output

Compare that to a nuclear reactor with capacity factor of 0.92 it roughly takes 4x to 5x as much peak output to generate the same amount of power.

So 1150MW solar plants is NOT comparable to 1150MW nuclear plant.

However a 4600MW to 5700MW solar plant is roughly comparable to a single nuclear reactor.

When you realize the largest operational solar plants in the US are in the 10-50 MW range and the largest planned is 553MW it puts that 5700MW number into perspective.

[w4rma]

64. Now we're talking. It's worth it to build a solar plants at 3.5x the cost of nuclear.

Very worth it, because your equation doesn't include costs for nuclear clean up and definitely doesn't include the potential costs of a potential accident, of which there is *always* a chance of no matter how many precautions are taken.

[Statistical]

77. So you have no problem with your electric bill being tripled?

Honestly.

I currently pay $120 a month in summer.
I can't afford $360 a month just because you think 100% solar power is a good idea.

[BeFree]

80. well

If you paid the true cost for your exorbitant energy use you would be paying over $360 a month. So, you really can't afford it can you?

You are being subsidized, eh? Can you say socialism? I knew you could.

[court jester]

42. Some numbers confusion here, help RE: 25 MW peak power, Mojave says 553 MW

DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center
Peak power: 25MW Annual Generation: 42,000 MWh
*********************8

Mojave Solar Park
“We are thrilled to bring 553 MW of clean energy to California,”
http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q3_2007/070725a.shtml

Isn't this a much bigger number? And therefore wouldn't you have to revise
your figures?

$175m for 553 MW vs 8 BILLION for AP1000 Peak power: 1150MW. Is that right?

I'm sure I've got it all wrong, I'm just trying to begin to understand this. Thanks.
By the way, where is Desoto going to be located?

[Statistical]

51. Didn't you just post that and I answer in the post DIRECTLY above this one.

Ground hasn't broken on MSP yet so I didn't use that plant.

However when you asked I provided a comparison.

There are so many things wrong with your statement I don't know why I bother.

1) The cost of MSP isn't $175m it is $2B. The $175M is for the much much much smaller solar plant.

2) Peak output is meaningless stat. Peak output (energy) doesn't make the lights come on in your home. POWER is what "makes the world go round".

energy * time = power.

A theoretically perfect plant would produce power = 24 * 365 * peak output. That would be a capacity factor of 1.00

Nuclear has far higher capacity factor than solar so looking at peak output is misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

So in what matters (power generation):
An AP1000 produces 9.3 billion kWh in a year. (1150MW * 0.92 * 24 * 365 / 1,000,000)
The MSP produces 1.33 billion kWh in a year at capacity factor of 0.27. (553MW * 0.7 * 24 * 365 / 1,000,000)

No solar plant in US has capacity factor of more than 0.2. The press release for MSP indicates 1.33GWh however that would be nearly 50% higher than any other plant in the US has achieved. Maybe they can do it but it is rather beyond the normal and an ambitious number to put down for a plant which hasn't even broken ground.

So using a capacity factor of 0.2 at low end and 0.27 as high end it roughly takes 7 to 10 MSP to equal output of a single AP1000.
$2B * 7 = $14B
$2B * 10 = $20B

So $14B to $20B vs $4B.
Same amount of power at 3.5X to 5x the construction cost.

Nuclear is expensive however it produces a massive amount of power. If someone every built a solar array that rivaled output of a nuclear reactor it would be expensive also.

Of course costs isn't the only issue. Construction for this plant is 3 years and there are no other larger plants being planned at this point. To equal a single reactor would require building 10 of these. Then again that is just a SINGLE reactor. Georgia will be building 2 side by side at the same time (equal to 20 of these solar plants). There are 18 reactors planned for next decade in the US. That would require 180 of these super plants (each taking 9 square miles of desert). That doesn't even address the real issue of 1300 fossil fuel plants in the United States.

At one or two solar plants per year how many hundreds of years will that take to replace them all?

[SidDithers]

52. Mojave Solar Park is $2 Billion, not $175M...

1 AP100 is $8 billion for 1150MW which operates at 92% efficiency
1150 MW x 24hours/day x 365 days/year x 92% efficiency = 9,268,020 MWh


Mojave:
$2 billion for 553 MW which operates at ~ 27% efficiency
553 MW x 24hours/day x 365 days/year x 27% efficiency = 1,308,000 MWh
Need 7 Mojaves to = 1 AP100 = $14 BILLION

Desoto:
$175 million for 25MW which operates at ~ 20% efficiency
25MW x 24 hours / day x 365 days / year x 20% = 43,800 MWh
Need 215 Desotos to = 1 AP100 = $37.625 BILLION

Sid

Edit: Statistical beat me to it :)

[Statistical]

53. Your verson was more to the point.

Also one "suspect" thing is the Desoto plant has a capacity factor of 0.2 which is in line with other large scale solar plants in the US. The Mojave plant has a capacity factor of 0.27 which seems rather high considering no other large scale solar plant has been able to achieve that kind of cap factor.

At a more "normal" 0.20 that increases the comparable cost of Mojave project to $20 billion.

[SidDithers]

54. Yeah, 27% seemed high to me too...

but I thought maybe there was something special about the Mojave desert :shrug:

Sid

[Statistical]

57. Well Mojave desert does get good solar insolation but...

there are other plants in the same area with much lower capacity factor.

Nevada Solar One has cap of 0.23%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

Solar Two had cap factor of 0.21%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project

I mean 0.27% isn't impossible but sometimes real world brings those numbers down some.

Then again even at high end of 0.27 it is 3.5x the cost of equivalent nuclear reactor.

[DireStrike]

55. Regardless of immediate need, as much money as possible needs to go into solar

The sooner we get that investment down the better. Every roof in the country should be covered in panels.

[Statistical]

58. I agree 100%.

my points simply is that the problem is SO HUGE. Larger than some people can conceptualize that even with a massive ambitious program to rollout wind & solar it will require nuclear if we want to reduce fossil fuel consumption significantly in next couple decades.

[DireStrike]

59. Understood. It is a good point.

Depending on how it looks like fossil fuels will affect our climate, nuclear waste may actually be preferable to additional co2 in the short run.

[Confusious]

74. While I support nuclear

There should be laws passed that all new homes be built with solar on at least 50% of the roof.

[SoCalDem]

60. A government program that would start to replace roofing and

set up solar power generation home-by-home, community-by-community would go a long way to reducing DEMAND for dirty-power..and at the same time, INCREASING demand for MORE solar.

but of course the power companies and the rail companies would NOT like that one bit..


money in the pocket of corporate CEOs NOW is preferred..no matter what the consequences for people yet to be born..

It's about the MONEY

[eppur_se_muova]

65. Hi, statistical! Haven't seen you posting in Environment/Energy ...

There are a few numerate, fact-based types in E/E who make occasional posts of this nature.

Like you, I don't regard nuclear as perfect, but don't realistically believe we'll get by without it -- just as we're not getting by without it now. And I do want to see renewables developed, but realize that current technology is a long way from being implementable on the necessary scale.

Of course, the two most necessary components of any overall plan are (1) reduction of energy use per capita, by much larger amounts than being contemplated by most policymakers; (2) reduction and reversal of population growth. Without (1) nothing is ever likely to be truly renewable, without (2) no solution will do anything but postpone the inevitable.

[upi402]

66. we forget the scale of Chernobyl disaster

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Abg&resnum=0&q=Chernobyl%20disaster&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

If you think we don't have the capability of a fuckup on that scale, you have not been paying attention.

You touts are starting to make me furious with your bullshit. Move next to a nuclear plant asshats, and stay there.

We have just one planet that supports life. Why do we insist on crapping where we eat' sleep, and breath.

[depakid]

67. Chenobyl has almost nothing with modern nuclear power facilities

That's a matter of engineering though- not scale.

[Codeine]

69. Nobody build Chernobyl style plants anymore.

Everyone knew that graphite cooling was a stupid idea even then.

[Statistical]

78. Please educate yourself.

1) Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor.
Graphite moderation is cheap (allows raw uranium to be used) however they are inherently dangerous and unstable in the best conditions.
As a result graphite moderated reactors have NEVER be authorized or built in the United States or non Soviet bloc countries for Power Generation. Even the Russians have wised up and now build water moderated reactors. With a graphite moderated reactor you have a positive-void condition in which steam bubbles accelerate the reactor producing more heat which makes more steam which provides more acceleration, etc. Western reactor designs are negative-void. Steam bubbles actually slow down and cool the reactor. The cooling water is what "moderates" the reactor. Moderate is simply a fancy word for slow down neutrons to speeds that allow fission. Without water neutrons can't cause more fission and reactor slows down and stops. Water moderation is just one of dozens of PASSIVE safety systems in reactors. Passive safety systems don't require any humans to "stop a meltdown" they simply use laws of physics to prevent those conditions from occurring.

2) Chernobyl had no containment structure. The soviets considered the cost (about $100 mil) and the number of reactors they were planning on building (500) and considered it a waste of time and resources. Every single reactor in the United States has a containment structure. The reactor pressure vessel never failed in TMI but EVEN IF IT DID the containment structure would have contained the molten core.

3) Chernobyl was missing vital parts, and many safety systems had been taken offline to keep the reactor running. The soviet Union "planned" economy was failing and key parts were simply unavailable. There also was no regulatory oversight and the reactor operators were given orders to keep reactor running "at all costs" because if it went offline there simply was no other generation available. None of those conditions apply to the us.

4) At the time of the accident the operators were attempting an untested experimental procedure in which they cut off backup power and attempted to keep cooling pumps operational by the inertia in main turbine alone. It proved disastrous.

It is an utterly false comparison except to those who feel knowledge and information should be avoided at all cost.

However there is always room for improvement. GenIII+ reactors like the AP1000 can cool a reactor with no pumps. More passive safety, the reactor uses circulation, and convection to dissipate heat even in the virtually impossible scenario that all 4 redundant cooling pumps fail at same time. New reactors are far more safe that older US reactors which are a magnitude safer than Russian designs.

[upi402]

89. Since there are differences, nothing like that could ever happen here

This is America!
It's just that I've been around a lot of electro-mechanical systems. Murphy's law and "WTF was that" -happens. Decades of experience instructs that. And some of the smartest folks have the biggest blind spots. UPS systems fail to shunt trip on all the time. And despite testing, there are arc flash explosions regularly with them. Molded case cicuit breakers cascade trip and take out main electrical services frequently. And Variable Frequency Drive pump controlers, as well as DDC controls, are tweeky as hell. So multiple failures happen.

Samrt folks can tell me how many branches on each tree but don't seem to understand that there's a forest involved... and an eco system overarching that.


I'm being a smartass, I know -apologies.
I hope that you would broaden your perspective a bit, smart folks like you are soooo needed to keep this fragile globe of life spinning.

If 3 Mile Island was contained and had a backup, why was anyone ever bothered?

[Statistical]

90. "If 3 Mile Island was contained and had a backup ..."

That is a very good question. The answer is really public hysteria, media, anti-nuke forces and really bad timing of the release of "China Syndrome" the week prior.

The containment system at TMI worked as designed.

While you have been around electrical systems you are still thinking to complicated. A cornerstone of nuclear reactor design is PASSIVE safety. Things that work without complex electronics, actuators, human response time, etc.

A reactor WILL shut down if control rods are inserted and/or neutron poison is added. The system to cause this are passively controlled. It doesn't require an active response to trigger them, it requires an active response to AVOID them being triggered.
Once that happens fission will stop. Without a high enough neutron economy the chain reaction will fail and stop.

The only remaining issue is cooling rhe reactor to remove decay heat. Without ongoing fission 95% of heat in reactor is instantly gone however even 5% of 5000MW of thermal energy is a lot. The cooling and emergency systems are massively redundant. The easiest method to have the normal pumps (which are already redundant) keep pumping water over reactor like it is still operation. If electricity fails the pumps are connected to fly wheels. If one pump fails they are redundant (4 on most reactors and only 1 is needed for emergency cooling). If they all fails there is a backup cooling system. If that fails the reactor can depressurize and release steam into cooling tanks removing heat. If that fails the molten core will melt through the reactor vessel and drop into huge (million gallons) of water below that cooling it. If that fails sprayers (like passive fire sprinkler system) cools the containment dome to avoid it breaking.

None of those systems require a single human to operate.

Eventually via one of those methods the fuel will be "cold" (well not cold but not hot enough to melt the reactor) and then reactor will sit there motionless waiting for a human to start it up (restore conditions that allow fission to happen).

[Codeine]

70. I would like to thank you for this post.

It's one of the best I've seen on DU on this subject; a fantastic analysis. :yourock:

[joshcryer]

72. K&R. People really don't grasp the scale.

Which is why it pisses me off when people delusionally think that the market will magically make renewables fall from the sky and save us from AGW.

[Confusious]

75. Boy this thread is a lot more different then another

created in GD by a more hysterical DUer.

[miyazaki]

76. kick...

:kick:

[snooper2]

79. Thanks....maybe people will think about this more now...

nuclear is the only way to go, period.

It's solves many more issues than it creates. Closer we get to energy independence the better off the World is...

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. By any chance remember what early personal calculaters cost?

Compare that to their cost today. What used to cost hundreds of dollars now can be bought for under $5. Because of the deemed vital military use of nuclear fission to create atomic weapons there has been a continuing massive federal subsidy of R&D costs of nuclear technology for 75 years.

Solar hasn't even begun to achieve more than the mildest economy of scale savings from current technology production techniques, let alone benefit from "a Manhattan Project" type federal research priority subsidy to advance the technology for 5 years, let alone 75.

The will for solar has been lacking, the military industrial complex isn't geared for it and it isn't deemed vital to our national security, and that completely skews all of your cost figures.

[Statistical]

85. Hate to break it to you but no weapons have EVER been developed from nuclear power reactors.

The DOD built its own plutonium "reactors" which are little more than a giant graphite cube with manually loaded cylinders of uranium and water pouring over it.

While the first power reactors were based on naval reactor designs and they did get some free R&D from that those designs are not well suited for power generations. Naval reactors tend to use HEU are very compact, operate under extreme pressures, and generate (relative to wide-scale power generation) little power. Commercial power reactors are much larger use LEU, have lower operating pressures, longer lifespans and generate a magnitude more power.


Still I do support more R&D money and keeping subsidies for solar (solar is rather heavily subsidized curremtly). That doesn't mean solar alone can break the grip of fossil fuels in any meaningful timeframe (say 20 years).

[Tom Rinaldo]

87. I didn't mean to imply that they were

But the initial and extremely costly research and development of all nuclear fission technology was driven by our weapons program. And the technology and techniques needed for the complete uranium fuel cycle, from mining to enrichment to handling to waste storage, still share much common technology across military and civilian applications.

Actually I believe that more aggressive and sustained energy conservation measures need to be ramped up now to help us bridge the next 20 years. Despite some recent progress, much much more can be done domestically with existing technology to significantly cut energy usage.

[flamin lib]

86. Wish I could rec this more than once. One of the best posts I've seen

in a long time regardless of how anyone feels about nuclear power.

Even if you absolutely despise nuclear as a possible power source just knowing the size of the problem and the costs associated with fixing it might make coming to grips with other ideas easier.

[grahamhgreen]

93. Hydro, Tidal, Wind are all cheaper, smarter and less dangerous. chart

DOE - COST 2007 $/KW

Adv Nuclear 3318

Bioimass 3766
MSW - Landfill Gas 2543
Geothermal 1711
Conventional Hydropower 2242
Wind 1923
Wind Offshore 3851
Solar Thermal 5021
Photovoltaic 6038

Tidal is also cheaper

When you add in the cost of one nuclear disaster, waste storage and transpo, cancer for workers, and tritium release into the atmosphere,

NUCLEAR IS BULLSHIT ND NOT COST EFFECTIVE!! I LIVE IN GA BUILD THIS SHIT IN YOUR OWN STATE!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3

[yurbud]

94. this is the most common argument against solar and the lamest: we can't use it because we haven't

built enough and therefore we shouldn't. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Also, photovoltaics isn't the only way to go.

Solar thermal is a lot simpler: just use sunlight to boil water or some other liquid to turn a turbine or piston. We've been using steam engines for a couple of centuries.

If we were building solar at a break neck pace, you might have an argument, but we are not.

We should be doing everything clean possible.

[Statistical]

97. Never said we SHOULDN'T use solar. We most certainly should.

The goal was to show the scale than even if we built solar out at 10x, 100x, 1000x the current build rate (which are likely far far far beyond anything we realistically could do) we will won't eliminate fossil fuels for electricity in next 3 decades.

Solar + Wind + Hydro + Geothermal + Nuclear + improved efficiencies + reduced usage is the only way to eliminate burning fossil fuels in our lifetime.

Anything less simply means it will take lifetimes longer to break away from fossil fuels.

[yurbud]

98. it is only unrealistic because we are not even trying. We put a man on the moon in ten years

We have record unemployment and need to switch to alternative energy. Any chance the brainiacs in Washington could put those two things together and come up with a Clean Energy
Conversion Corps:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2009/11/jobs-program-how-about-clean-energy.html

[yurbud]

95. nuclear is attractive for primarily one reason: it can be monopolized.

you can't build a nuclear reactor in your backyard if your electric bill gets too high.

We should be looking at ways to decentralize our energy supply not give more power to sociopathic trust fund babies on Wall Street.

[earth mom]

100. There should be fed money so that people can install solar or wind on their own property

which I should think would cut your timeline considerably.

The problem is that there is NO profit it that for large corporate energy companies.

[Statistical]

101. There is fully refundable tax credits both at state and federal level. = free money

Still there is a limited capacity in PV manufacturing and that ramp up won't be fast.
PV fabs are very expensive and companies making them want to make sure demand will be greater than capacity to avoid selling panels at a loss.

[earth mom]

104. Who in the hell has the cash to pay for solar or wind right now? I know I don't.

And those tax breaks don't really amount to much on the other end. Whoopee fucking do. :eyes:

I stand by my post, because I know it is the only way for middle class/working class people like me to afford it.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tabasco]

103. Nice, informative post.

Thanks. :toast:

[maryf]

106. the scale of other plant's effects

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=526899&navID=2&lID=2

[SlingBlade]

108. "Drill Baby Drill.", Why am I expecting those exact words to come

outta Obama's mouth soon ?