What that article means is that the demand for uranium wasn’t high, so a lot of production shut down. When the price goes up, production returns. It’s a temporary artificial shortage, not an actual shortage of easily mine-able uranium in nature.
Part of the reason for the drop in price and fall off of production was because the US and Russia are sitting on tons of cold war-era nuclear fuel. We’re starting to burn through some of that now.
First, it has to go down in price A LOT! A lot a lot. Has a ways to go to be cost competitive. Yes we have been told of spray-on cheap solar cells. Sounds great…where can I get some?
Second, so far this is pie-in-the-sky stuff.
Build a test plant. Do a proof of concept. Show it can run whole cities day AND night. Show it can do it at a competitive cost.
Make no mistake. I am all for this stuff. Some of the new tech is cool and I want to see research and progress continue. I absolutely think the future energy mix needs to be a combination of sources. If you have access to geo-thermal go for it. Tidal power go for it.
All that stuff will mitigate how many primary power plants are needed. If they get so good they can replace them completely then great!
Thing is no one has shown that they can replace fossil fuel/nuclear plants at anything remotely like a rational price.
The “incentives” in the calculator for solar we have been using tells that story.
Spray-on solar cells at $0.05/Kw sounds great.
If it can be done super. If they can provide power at night even better.\
Show us it can be done. Done on an industrial scale.
If the tech looks good I am all for the government spending money to pursue it.
Right now though it is not ready for primetime.
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
What!!! That’s unpossible! Whatever happened to the $112,680.66 cost? You mean it could be going down and going down fast?
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t actually read that article, did you? You opened it up and read the title and then just moved on, relying on your preconceptions to carry the day. Here is what DSeid’s link ACTUALLY says:
This is, of course, in the first paragraph…it’s an award to research and develop technology to a number of vendors. I HOPE the problem is that you didn’t bother reading it.
Here is what the DOE HOPES to do with these programs:
They AIM to reduce costs…see, costs today, in the real world, are high. Paint on solar panels are still being researched and developed…you can’t, you know, buy them today. So, the DOE is giving away a big pot of money in the HOPE that some of the vendors getting the awards will use that money to make breakthroughs. This won’t happen the day after the vendors get the grants…or the day after that. It will happen when it happens. And we won’t instantly get the benefits of those breakthroughs…assuming there are any that achieves the ‘aims’ they are looking for.
-XT
Indeed, it could result in solar becoming cost competitive. And I hope it does. It is a smart investment.
Meanwhile another link of interest.
We’ll see if their predictions pan out.
I hope it does too, and I agree that it’s something that we should be investing in and DOE seems to be doing a good job here with these grants. Hopefully something will come out of it.
-XT
Alternative-Energy-News.info domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com There are lots of interesting and exciting new strides in alternative energies. The argument that solar can not replace all of coal or nuke today is unfair. It is an evolving technology with frequent breakthroughs that will be extremely important in the future.
There are lots of important strides being taken in alternative energy. The Luddites that tout nuclear just insist of clinging to a dream that never materialized.
You don’t actually know what a ‘Luddite’ is, do you? 
-XT
Well, obviously, they like Ludd.
Depends on whether you are a Pube or a Gray I guess…
-XT
Here is some efficiency news, about Facebook’s new energy-saving server and data center designs.
It’s starting to look like Efficiency™ is going to eventually kick nuclear *and *wind’s asses.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/
There is the Bloom Box. It was on 560 minutes and supplies energy to several large companies.
I’d be interested in better efficiency numbers than “>50%” which is all their data sheet says. I know the most modern combined-cycle gas turbine plants are approaching 60%.
gonzo what exactly is your relevant point with the Bloom Box?
In terms of power generation it is at best a small relatively less efficient natural gas supplied electricity generator. Its advantage to users is that it provides insulation from transmission inadequacies and from system disruptions. Reliable power in times of questionable infrastructure. Who know? Maybe long term it saves money for a factory or a large apartment complex or a subdivision to pay for the natural gas and produce their own electricity. But the prevention of distribution losses does not save as much CO2 as the decreased efficiency produces compared to centralized production.
Based on the imprecision of Bloom’s claims, I’m not sure whether your last statement is true.
On the other hand, the LNG infrastructure is differently inefficient than the grid, but the inefficiencies are still there (just in the power required to maintain pressures etc instead of structural transmission losses).
Well I am trying to find out more specific comparisons …
Bloom’s fact sheet claims “CO2@ specified efficiency 773 lbs/MW-hr on natural gas” but does not state what that specified efficiency is.
That would, if accurate in real world applications (rather than only at “specified efficiency”) be really good, about as good as combined cycle natural gas plant CO2 emissions of 760, and better than simple cycle of 1140, let alone coal of 2028. And sparing that much transmission infrastructure demand is not a bad thing.
They claim they can get the cost down to $3000/kW but for now the cost before incentives is estimated to be $12,500/kW installed. Including the 10year warranty. In 2007 solar cost about $8000 installed, had no fuel costs, and installations are supposed to last longer. They are not 24/7 however, not unless you also spring for enough some storage batteries. Then again, being tied into the grid and just displacing what you’d use daytime from an average US generating mix would still displace more CO2 I think.
No magic bullet. Maybe a magic pea shooter.
Interesting. I have no major beefs with that source, mainly it would be nice to know what efficiency they’re assuming for each technology (you need not look it up for me, I’ll get the paper from my librarian on Monday.) They cite a report from 2010, so I’d have to hope it’s somewhat up to date on combined cycle efficiency.
Shame that you had to do gonzomax’ legwork. Again.
Do you understand that solar power goes on a house or a company building. That is the model for the future. Solar panels need to be cleaned.
Homeowners should replace everything that needs replacing with a alternate energy system. like this http://solar.altestore.com/energy/Solar%20Hot%20Water%20Tank
Bloom boxes run some of the biggest corporate buildings. the point is they are off the grid. No transmission necessary.
Customers - Bloom Energy
Solutions?
For energy generation:
(1) Nuclear fusion.
(2) Solar satellites.
(3) Sea current power generation.
(4) Geotermal energy.
(5) Solar panels in every roof and wall.
For energy distribution.
(1) modern batteries.
(2) fuel cells.
There aren’t many options left, actually.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/off-grid-homes.php Here is one option. It is the best one if you can afford it. It is going off the grid one home at a time.
