# Anti-Fossil Fuel, Anti-Nuke People: What's the Solution to Our Energy Problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882 "2011-04-01T23:31:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/81 "2011-04-04T09:28:05Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Right, because harnessing the entire power of the sunlight that hits the entire earth is a trivial matter and it’s only the man that keeps it from happening. Oh, sure, The Man, the big international corporations, are the ones making the windmills and the solar panels, but they want to limit their own profit and make sure they kill solar panels and that no one buys them. So you don’t believe industries have fought innovation in the past to protect their own industries? If you do not know this about history there’s really nothing else I have to say. > [@](#): > > Tell me, are the death squads that kill anyone who invents a car that gets 200 mpg the same ones that make solar panel advocates dissapear in the middle of the night? Wow, you sure planted a smoking crater where _that_ straw man used to stand. Darn. I wish I had been standing at least close enough to see the fireworks. > [@matt](#): > > It is trivially easy to point out that the solar resource is enormous, as are the wind, wave or tidal resources. It’s just as trivially easy to point out that we could have a string of bases on the Moon by now: we were capable of getting people and stuff there forty years ago. The question is how much effort is required to actually capture enough of those low-density energy sources to make a difference? > > My cite from post 47 listed some of the resource requirements for building up to 3TW of installed global wind energy (30% of 2007 electricity demand) by 2020. In case anyone missed it: > > • 2 times the present world steel production of 2006 > • Almost half of the world extraction of coal > • 30 times the world production of glass fiber > • The world concrete production > • Almost half of the copper world production Ok and how much will be required to build the same amount of TW-equivalent in coal or nuclear power plants? BTW, solar energy, to date, has been doubling in performance every year, creating its own version of Moore’s Law: [http://www.wfs.org/content/smaller-faster-cheaper-solar-powers-moores-law](http://www.wfs.org/content/smaller-faster-cheaper-solar-powers-moores-law) As for the bases on the moon thing, that didn’t happen because we didn’t have the will. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/82 "2011-04-04T10:09:09Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > No, it’s an analogy. > > People say that ford knows how to make a 250 mpg engine, but they keep it a secret because making it would hurt big oil. But this assume that all big corporations are on the same side, that they’re all some sort of evil conspiring entity. That ford would voluntarily turn down trillions of dollars and becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world because they’d be worried that exxon mobil wouldn’t stay profitable. It makes no sense - even if you assume both corporations are pure evil, they’re still competing with each other for that money. They’re not going to suppress something that makes themselves money to benefit the other guy. > > Similarly, the solar panels and wind mills are made by big evil corporations. Le Jackelope would have us believe that these big corporations purposely shoot themselves in the foot and don’t sell all of the magical solar panels they could because they’re worried about the profits of the utility companies. Why, exactly, do they have this concern for a completely different business? Is the super evil corporation that would screw the entire world for a buck just too nice to cut into a competitor’s market share for profits? > > Why would all the big companies that make solar and wind power - the big evil corporations - suppress their own profit they make by selling these panels and turbines - to help the profitability of the utility companies? > > When you have to engage in this sort of nonsensical conspiratorial thinking, you should consider introspection, because there’s about a 99% chance you’ve made a fundamental error somewhere. If anything the opposite conspiracy theory seems more believable. That big green energy corporations engineered the Japanese nuclear melt down for their own profit. Shares of Vestas which were on a downward spiral until the nuke meltdown, did a complete turnaround because of the incident, and have since risen more than 30%. And in fact, all in all, the meltdown has been very positive for the Danish economy which has many green tech companies. Perhaps an investigation into the whereabouts of Danish special forces around the date of the quake would be in order. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/83 "2011-04-04T10:50:24Z")
**WAM** , I entirely support replacing the current nuclear stock with new nuclear as it ages out. My point has been that “new nuclear” will probably barely be able to keep up with that. I have stated explicitly that we handicap ourselves significantly if we do not do that. Yes, if we do not build enough to replace aging plants then fossil fuel ones will increase. Initially those will be natural gas plants but that just kicks the can down the road a few more decades. **matt** , the [referenced DOE report](http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/lbnl-3716e.pdf) is on line. Some interesting items: > [@](#): > > Data from Interconnection Queues Demonstrate that an Enormous Amount of Wind > Power Capacity Is Under Consideration. At the end of 2009, there were roughly 300 GW > of wind power capacity within the transmission interconnection queues administered by > independent system operators, regional transmission organizations, and utilities reviewed for > this report – nearly nine times the installed wind power capacity. This wind power capacity > represented almost 60% of all generating capacity within these queues at that time, and was > nearly three times as much capacity as the next-largest resource (natural gas). … > > … Upward Pressure on Wind Power Prices Continued in 2009. Although some of the cost > pressures facing the industry in recent years have eased, it will take time before relief flows > through the project development pipeline to impact overall average wind power prices. As > such, 2009 was another year of rising wind power prices. The capacity-weighted average > 2009 sales price for bundled power and renewable energy certificates, based on projects in > the sample built in 2009, was roughly $61/MWh (in 2009 dollars), up from an average of > $51/MWh for the sample of projects built in 2008, and nearly double the average of > $32/MWh among projects built during the low point in 2002 and 2003. … > > … Installed costs may – on average – remain high for a > period of time as developers continue to work their way through the dwindling backlog of turbines purchased in early 2008 at peak prices. There are expectations, however, that > average costs will decline over time as the cost pressures (e.g., rising materials costs, the > weak dollar, turbine and component shortages) that have challenged the industry in recent > years ease. … estimates of turbine price > declines of as much as 15%, along with more favorable contract terms, have begun to > emerge. These price reductions and improved terms can be expected, over time, to exert > downward pressure on project costs and wind power prices. The whole report makes an interesting read but that quote reveals some cherry picking bias by the author. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/84 "2011-04-04T10:56:54Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Similarly, the solar panels and wind mills are made by big evil corporations. Le Jackelope would have us believe that these big corporations purposely shoot themselves in the foot and don’t sell all of the magical solar panels they could because they’re worried about the profits of the utility companies. Why, exactly, do they have this concern for a completely different business? Is the super evil corporation that would screw the entire world for a buck just too nice to cut into a competitor’s market share for profits? Oddly enough this is exactly where the buggy whip argument has merit. Fossil fuels are today’s buggy whip industry. Solar and renewable energy is the technology of tomorrow. As in tomorrow morning, practically speaking. Also look up “innovation inertia” and “entrenched industry” before you continue to make arguments like this. However what I am about to tell you, I doubt will get much attention, because it is so fundamental to why you are so incredibly wrong here. Essentially, these big fossil fuel corporations need to make a profit. When you have them out drilling for oil and getting Government subsidies to sell it at a huge markup to American drivers, there is a lot of profit there. Still with me? Ok. Now when you put solar on people’s roofs and companies like Toyota put out Priuses or companies like Tesla Motors puts out [electric SUVs](http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/toyota-debuts-100-mile-teslapowered-rav4-ev-musk-says-it-helps-us-model-s), _this dramatically lowers the fossil fuel industry’s profits._ PREPOSTEROUS!!! Eh, nope. Because you cannot charge me for my use of the sun’s energy. Sunlight is free, and solar panels make free sunlight into free electricity. For a one-time charge of $X0,000 I get my electricity for free. And if I have an electric car, for which I paid a one-time charge of $Y0,000, I am no longer buying as much gasoline or any at all; and the electric utility company is making a mere _pittance_ compared to what it was making before. And solar panels double in efficiency every 2 years. This means it’s getting cheaper per kilowatt hour, and cheaper to produce. Plus we now have technology to collect solar energy at night, _and_ to store it well into the night. So, back to your original argument: these big fossil fuel corporations fight the mass-adoption of solar energy and electric vehicles with their pro-fossil fuel propaganda because the mass-adoption of solar energy and electric vehicles would dramatically reduce profits for _everyone_, while practically securing America’s energy security into perpetuity. Solar energy and electric cars almost eliminates the rule of scarcity across the energy equation, although you will pay a _decreasingly_ hefty one-time cost to switch to solar power and electric cars. I paid well over $30,000 for my solar setup, and quite a chunk for my 1999 RAV4-EV, which I am itching to replace with the upcoming Tesla model. I can tell you that my contribution to fossil fuel industry profits is quite NIL, except for my Chevy Equinox which is the most fuel efficient SUV currently in production (moreso than the Highlander Hybrid or the Escape Hybrid). ---
**Author:** ![CPomeroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@CPomeroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CPomeroy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/85 "2011-04-04T16:31:51Z")
I kind of skimmed this thread, but I did not see anyone mention the distribution issues associated with wind power. The wind resources are frequently located in remote areas which means lots of new power lines have to be built increasing cost and giving folks another thing to be all NIMBY about. People want power lines near their homes about as much as they want nuclear power plants. Having to fight the PR and legal battles makes the cost of wind power even higher. I am not as familiar with solar power, but I expect some of the same issues would be present. The end result is that I do not think you can have a meaningful discussion of the future of power without considering distribution issues as well. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/86 "2011-04-04T16:44:30Z")
> [@CPomeroy](#): > > The end result is that I do not think you can have a meaningful discussion of the future of power without considering distribution issues as well. Transmission has always been a part of the discussion. Don’t we all agree we’re going to have to spend a good chuck of change upgrading our power grid so it’s compatible with modern energy production? Nuclear faces all the same distribution issues I think, and plugging a 5MW wind turbine into the grid is easier than plugging a 1000MW nuke plant into the grid, especially when you’re talking about the developing world that still has a lot of people without an electricity grid at all. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/87 "2011-04-04T16:52:20Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] Transmission has always been a part of the discussion. Don’t we all agree we’re going to have to spend a good chuck of change upgrading our power grid so it’s compatible with modern energy production? [/QUOTE] Actually, it’s usually glossed over (as it was here). To get power from remote locations back to the grid requires not only large investment but it’s going to necessitate a lot of loss if the location is really remote. That’s part of the problem with some of the west Texas wind plants…they are really remote. Putting wind mills out to sea (far enough out to catch the wind and not be a eye sore to the NIMBY crowd) is going to increase the problem. Upgrading the grid in the way you seem to be implying would be even more money, of course, since currently the grid isn’t designed to store energy, merely balance load. It’s also got a lot of inherent loss in it, something that won’t be easy or cheap to ‘fix’. > [@](#): > > Nuclear faces all the same distribution issues I think, and plugging a 5MW wind turbine into the grid is easier than plugging a 1000MW nuke plant into the grid, especially when you’re talking about the developing world that still has a lot of people without an electricity grid at all. Not unless you were planning to put your 1000 MW nuclear plant out in the middle of no where with no current grid access. Generally, one of the things you look at when building a conventional power plant (nuclear or other) is what it’s access to the grid is. -XT ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/88 "2011-04-04T17:33:48Z")
NIMBYism. It sucks, but it’s a fact of life. Last night I was reading about the pathetic state of wind power in good ol’ Wisconsin. Man, they’ve got some nut jobs in power there. There was one article talking about this old coot living in the country near a wind turbine and this guy was rattling off every singe possible medical condition and symptom you could ever think up. His big thing was “shadowing” from the turbine scaring his chickens and driving him to the brink of insanity. Shadows scare chickens and then they all decide to eat their own eggs or something. Of course, towards the end of the article it turns out this guy has been trying to get the wind company to buy him out the whole time. He lives on cheap land in a ramshackle old house raising chickens so of course the wants to get bought out for a “fair price.” Even before the wind turbine was built he couldn’t have given away his crap piece of land. Texas has to deal with this in places. In Texas, if you’re a farmer or rancher, the wind company will lease the land from you which can easily mean thousands of dollars per year, which is far more than they were getting off their cattle or whatnot. So, the neighbors see George making $3k/month off that wind turbine, and they aren’t getting any. All of a sudden the neighbors start developing mental and physical health problems. The ranchers who are getting paid, run out to their wind turbine every night and give it a great big hug and kiss. Funny how that works. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/89 "2011-04-04T17:37:23Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m not an environmentalist, or anti-nuke, and only anti-fossil fuel for political reasons. Still, there are wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geo-thermal sources of energy available now that I think should be utilized to the maximum. That would at least reduce the need for the less desireable alternatives. I doubt that all of them together will supplant nuclear and fossil fuels, but I don’t see good reasons to ignore them. You mean other than cost and efficiency, right? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/90 "2011-04-04T17:44:48Z")
The concept that we have to have huge plants in remote locations is a flawed and obsolete model. > **[Alternative-Energy-News.info domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com](http://alternative-energy-news.info/technology/environment-wildlife/)** > > Alternative-Energy-News.info domain name is for sale. Make an offer or buy it now. Your purchase is secured by Epik. As I posted in the PIT, a proper method of energy generation can be a home or office building at a time. There are lots of people off the grid. There are many corporations that are slashing power use and replacing it with solar and wind. The Empire State Bldg. will be run 100 percent on wind power. They do not rely on the old technology of coal ans nuclear. They embraced the future. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/91 "2011-04-04T18:03:22Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] The concept that we have to have huge plants in remote locations is a flawed and obsolete model. [/QUOTE] So, ‘obsolete model’ means ‘economically cost effective’? 😛 You do realize that trying to build a distributed power generation system costs a lot more than building a centralized one, right? What would it cost (leaving aside the materials you’d need) to put a wind turbine or solar panel on, say, 1/10th of the buildings in the US? How many wind turbines or solar panels would that be? There are 10’s or 100’s of millions of buildings in the US…and my own solar panels (which doesn’t even cover 20% of my needs btw, though gives me some good tax credits) costs $12k…USED…and I installed them myself, with the help of my dad and a EE friend of mine. Do…the…math… > [@](#): > > There are lots of people off the grid. Define ‘lots of people’. What standard of living are they getting ‘off the grid’? The one’s I know (and I know a few) lead very minimalist lifestyles (and are, frankly, a bit strange). Not something the average American (or European for that matter) is going to be happy with. > [@](#): > > The Empire State Bldg. will be run 100 percent on wind power. You said that in the Pit but have yet to provide a cite to put the statement in context. What will it cost? How long will it take to implement? What are it’s backups? How much for maintenance. And, the thing is, even if all is true and all exactly as you stated, you have to realize that not every place has the exact conditions that the Empire State Building has…right? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/92 "2011-04-04T19:32:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You said that in the Pit but have yet to provide a cite to put the statement in context. What will it cost? How long will it take to implement? What are it’s backups? How much for maintenance. And, the thing is, even if all is true and all exactly as you stated, you have to realize that not every place has the exact conditions that the Empire State Building has…right? The building is going to [buy power from a company](http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/empire-state-building-converting-to-wind-power-48785.html) that uses wind power to generate electricity. The building is not installing windmills or anything. If [this link](http://greenanswers.com/q/168718/energy-fuels/electricity-infrastructure/how-much-energy-does-it-take-power-empire-state-bui) is to be believed (I cannot access his cite) the Empire State building has a peak power draw of about 10 MW and they are trying to lower that down to about 6.2MW. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/93 "2011-04-04T19:40:01Z")
(missed edit window and wanted to add) So, that would be about three 2.5MW turbines dedicated to the Empire State building (assuming they run at peak power all the time which we know they don’t). There are around [5,500 highrise buildings in New York](http://igs.kirjastot.fi/en-GB/iGS/questions/question.aspx?ID=607c2caf-feca-4c85-85c1-d0457bcf9a62). Of course most are not as big as the Empire State building but if we only average 0.25 wind turbines per building that is 1,375 wind turbines for New York City alone (and we have not even counted residential or industry yet). How big is an average wind farm? 300 turbines maybe? Somehow betting gonzo will not see the glaring problem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/94 "2011-04-04T19:42:54Z")
Bit different than what he claimed, since he was saying that centralized power was out of date. 😛 He was implying that they would build the things on the building itself, since his model seems to be a highly distributed one where every building would have the wind/solar it needs to be self sufficient…or something. That’s why it’s nice to see some context on what’s actually being proposed. Thanks for the cite! Yeah, a 1,375 turbine wind farm would be the largest in the world to date…yet we’d need literally 10’s of thousands of plants that big just to get us to where nuclear is today. And that’s if they are running at peak efficiency all the time, which somehow seems unlikely to me. -XT ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/95 "2011-04-04T20:01:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The building is going to [buy power from a company](http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/empire-state-building-converting-to-wind-power-48785.html) that uses wind power to generate electricity. The building is not installing windmills or anything. From the article: > [@](#): > > “It was a natural fit for us to combine 100-percent clean energy with our nearly completed, ground-breaking energy efficiency retrofit work,” stated Anthony E. Malkin, the building’s supervisor and president of Malkin Holdings, in a prepared statement. > > The building is currently involved in a $20-million, multi-year project to bring about energy-efficient retrofits. The effort is expected to reduce energy use by 38 percent and result in savings of $4.4 million per year. The project includes assessments of infrastructure needs and tenant energy use, as well as investments in infrastructure upgrades. > > Malkin noted that the initiative will aid in drawing in the best tenants at top rents. Wow, haven’t some of us been talking about efficiency, and getting blown off like it’s meaningless and “sure, if you like planet of the apes.” For $20 million, you reduce energy use by 38 percent and save $4.4 million/year. It pays for itself in 4 and a half years. Since nuke is 20% of our electricity, it wipes out the need for nuke, and then takes another big chunk out of coal. Sweet! ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/96 "2011-04-04T20:17:33Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > From the article: > > Wow, haven’t some of us been talking about efficiency, and getting blown off like it’s meaningless and “sure, if you like planet of the apes.” > > For $20 million, you reduce energy use by 38 percent and save $4.4 million/year. It pays for itself in 4 and a half years. Since nuke is 20% of our electricity, it wipes out the need for nuke, and then takes another big chunk out of coal. > > Sweet! You are assuming that such efficiencies can be achieved everywhere. The Empire State Building was built in 1930. I imagine they had room for improvement. Willing to bet modern skyscrapers are built with an eye towards energy efficiency from the get-go. And I have seen no one blow off working towards being more energy efficient. It is a great idea. It’s not going to get you close to where you want though in getting rid of nuclear energy short of some fantasy of an idealized, perfectly energy frugal society cropping up overnight. Energy use per person in the US has been steadily increasing since we started consuming electricity. Add in things like electric cars becoming ever more common and the demand will be greater still. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/97 "2011-04-04T20:25:37Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You are assuming that such efficiencies can be achieved everywhere. The Empire State Building was built in 1930. I imagine they had room for improvement. Willing to bet modern skyscrapers are built with an eye towards energy efficiency from the get-go. > > And I have seen no one blow off working towards being more energy efficient. It is a great idea. It’s not going to get you close to where you want though in getting rid of nuclear energy short of some fantasy of an idealized, perfectly energy frugal society cropping up overnight. Energy use per person in the US has been steadily increasing since we started consuming electricity. Add in things like electric cars becoming ever more common and the demand will be greater still. No, energy use per capita has been [pretty flat for twenty years.](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=energy+use+per+capita) Interior space heating in both business and residential spaces is a huge source of waste, with lots of room for efficiency. Efficiency, as a science and industry, is really pretty young. We aren’t going to see increases in per capita energy use again, unless we become really wealthy and start making up reasons to squander it on our palaces, but I don’t see that happening widely. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/98 "2011-04-04T20:26:47Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You mean other than cost and efficiency, right? Yes, exactly. So long as the fossils fuels are inexpensive (part of which is an illusion), the alternatives will seem expensive. The efficiency factor is simply a matter of cost. If solar cells were free, no one would care much about the inefficiency. Just as nobody cared much about the inefficiency of internal combustion engines when oil was as cheap as water. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/99 "2011-04-04T20:33:32Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > No, energy use per capita has been [pretty flat for twenty years.](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=energy+use+per+capita) Or, ya know, you could cite electricity usage since that is the topic at hand: [Home - Data Commons](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=electricity+consumption) Sure looks like a general trend up to me for the last 50 years. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/100 "2011-04-04T20:46:57Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Or, ya know, you could cite electricity usage since that is the topic at hand: [Home - Data Commons](http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_elec_kh_pc&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=electricity+consumption) > > Sure looks like a general trend up to me for the last 50 years. Okay you got me. From the year 2000 until the year 2007 our per capita electricity use ranged from 13,670 kWh to 13,638 kWh in '07. Yeah, electricity use is skyrocketing. Fire up those nukes! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=6)