# Nuclear Power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035 "2008-10-29T02:56:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/341 "2009-03-03T01:58:50Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Turns out, he’s right. Not a whole state at all; not even close. [cite](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/18/al-gore/al-gore-optimistic-about-solar-energy-and-pretty-a/) > > Suck on that. Okay. A hundred miles on a side will do (probably an optimistic number, but lets go with it). Lets go with my 1000 dollars a person in the USA budget. If I did the math right, you need to be able to build that facility for about 1.5 dollars a square foot. You can barely do cheap carpet for that kind of money. A state of the art industrial power production facility, of a kind never really made before? Color me dubious. ---
**Author:** ![CutterJohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/91b2a8/32.png) [@CutterJohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CutterJohn)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/342 "2009-03-03T02:26:30Z")
We should seriously put this stuff on the south pole. What possible place could be better than in the center of a virtually lifeless continent? We dig out an Iowa Class battleship yet again, and spend the millions a year to make it the worlds most well armed and armored trash truck(and would be a bargain considering the billions already spent). Till then, yucca is fine. I’d be jumping for joy at the cash being brought in to the area to support this sort of benign installation. I’d try to get a job there. I would laugh as the land prices nearby dropped, and bought it for myself. I just don’t understand the problem. Then again, I’ve taken many a nap less than 50 ft\* away from an actual operating reactor without worry, or indeed second thought, because I was trained to understand the risks of radiation, to be able to use monitoring equipment and monitor it myself to determine dose rates and stay times. I knew the risks and knew the safety precautions, not because someone told me, but because I spent years getting the theory hammered into me so I could do the math myself, and understand, not just be told, that what I was doing was safe. It seems nevadans, and indeed, most americans, have received their training about reactors/radiation/rad safety/health physics from hollywood, and believe what they were taught. Crying shame too, since the longer we spend waiting for a miracle/revolution, the worse the changeover is going to be. Unless we actually do get a miracle or revolution in power production, in which case sweet… Still, not something I would gamble on. \*“Sure Chief… I’ll clean the bilge EXTRA good…” I had a great spot on top of two warm, insulated pipes with some rags for a pillow. Yeah, against the rules and a bit naughty, but not that bad. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/343 "2009-03-03T02:49:55Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > We should seriously put this stuff on the south pole. What possible place could be better than in the center of a virtually lifeless continent? We dig out an Iowa Class battleship yet again, and spend the millions a year to make it the worlds most well armed and armored trash truck(and would be a bargain considering the billions already spent). > > [/SIZE] Cutter, I’ve been saying this for a long time as well. Not because its a giant, nearly lifeless continent. Though it helps. The nuke waste people are worried about 2 things mostly. Undesirable folks stealing the stuff and doing evil things with it. The waste moving from where its placed/buried to somewhere else. Mostly the second. The location of Antarctica is a damn good deterent to the first. The cold ass nature of the continent is damn good for the second problem. The waste people are worried that water will leach the waste out from its solid form and move it. Water needs to be liquid to move. That doesnt happen down there (Inevitable pointless nitpick to be posted by someone soon I am sure ). Also, there are the dry valleys, which in addition to be stone cold, barely have trace amounts of precipitation. They are some of the driest places on earth. So, not only is the water frozen, there is hardly any there in the first place. Hell, down there in the dry valleys, you could probably dig a shallow trench, dump the stuff in, and in thousands of years you couldnt even tell if it moved any. And even IF the stuff manages by some miracle of miracles TO move, its gotta move thousands of miles, at which point it just reaches a big ass ocean and gets diluted as hell before it gets anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/344 "2009-03-03T03:11:56Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > The location of Antarctica is a damn good deterent to the first. It’s also a damn good deterrent against putting it there in the first place, for the same reasons. > [@](#): > > Water needs to be liquid to move. They’re called “glaciers”. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/345 "2009-03-03T03:37:37Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > It’s also a damn good deterrent against putting it there in the first place, for the same reasons. > They’re called “glaciers”. Bingo You win the first nitpick award. Lets see who can get the second. There are at least two left. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/346 "2009-03-03T03:58:11Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Bingo > > You win the first nitpick award. Lets see who can get the second. There are at least two left. Oh, I get it now. Any time some one corrects the fallacies in your argument, or shows your statement to be non-factual, it’s “nitpicking”. Got it. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/347 "2009-03-03T04:06:27Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > If other sites WERENT studied, as you claim, then there is a high possibility of other, possibly even better sites existing. > > If other sites WERE studied and this was the only suitable one found, then your claim that other sites werent studied is wrong. > > You can’t logically have it both ways. I can have sites that had data collected and analyzed, but only one site that had a real study done. The historical record speaks for itself, as I quoted and cited. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/348 "2009-03-03T04:39:11Z")
I’m pretty much out of this discussion at this point…all that RL stuff. However: [QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] I can have sites that had data collected and analyzed, but only one site that had a real study done. The historical record speaks for itself, as I quoted and cited. [/QUOTE] From your Wiki site: > [@](#): > > The Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation’s first long-term geologic repository for over 70,000 metric tons (150 million pounds) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently stored at 121 sites around the nation. On December 19, 1984, the Department of Energy selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. This was based on data collected for nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a former nuclear test site. The Act provided that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. If that should happen, the site will be restored and DOE will seek new directions from Congress.[8] Seriously…this is from YOUR cite. Even a cursory review of the data and even a passing knowledge of the history would show that, well, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about…again. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make statements that I can basically check out on a frigging iPod? Unless your definition of ‘real’ ‘study’ and ‘site’ are, of course, radically different than anyone else uses… -XT ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/349 "2009-03-03T05:12:21Z")
I tried to steer it away earlier. It’s unfortunate that this thread got derailed from something interesting into someone’s NIMBYism and attempts by either side to uncover it and hide it. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/350 "2009-03-03T05:19:37Z")
[QUOTE=SenorBeef] I tried to steer it away earlier. It’s unfortunate that this thread got derailed from something interesting into someone’s NIMBYism and attempts by either side to uncover it and hide it. [/QUOTE] Not a chance. Bo is going to just keep declaring victory despite the fact that only he seems to feel that way…well, he and gonzo of course. Your best bet is to simply let this thread die and start another one (this one was almost a zombie thread in any case as it was recently re-revived) with a more narrow focus on simply the aspects you want explored. Good luck! -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/351 "2009-03-03T06:12:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously…this is from YOUR cite. Even a cursory review of the data and even a passing knowledge of the history would show that, well, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about…again. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make statements that I can basically check out on a frigging iPod? > > Unless your definition of ‘real’ ‘study’ and ‘site’ are, of course, radically different than anyone else uses… > > -XT Congratulations on being able to copy what I posted. The 10 sites were not studied. Data that had already been collected was organized into a report. From that report, there were initially 3 sites to be studied. In 1987, Congress directed the DOE to study only one site. It’s really quite clear and simple. I’m sorry that you are having a hard time understanding the facts, but it doesn’t change them. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/352 "2009-03-03T06:31:39Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Congratulations on being able to copy what I posted. [/QUOTE] It’s a talent like any other. Some folks excel at laughing their ass off and declaring victory by fiat. Me…I cut and paste with the best of them. > [@](#): > > The 10 sites were not studied. Well, that clears it all up, obviously. > [@](#): > > Data that had already been collected was organized into a report. From that report, there were initially 3 sites to be studied. In 1987, Congress directed the DOE to study only one site. Too be sure. > [@](#): > > It’s really quite clear and simple. I’m sorry that you are having a hard time understanding the facts, but it doesn’t change them. All of your arguments have been simple and clear…and bubbling with humor as well, which is an additional bonus. I haven’t had a hard time understanding the ‘facts’…merely incredulous of what you keep trying to present as ‘facts’, and that you really believe you are doing well in this debate. Well, I think I’ll leave it too you. Those reading along can form their own judgments on the various issues. Myself, magical roof top power and solar powered roads seem just a wee bit beyond our current abilities. Perhaps some day. Wind…again, ramping this up to meet a large percentage of our current needs just doesn’t seem to be in the cards right now. Coal…well, certainly this technology can and does meet the majority of our current needs. However there is all that nasty CO2 stuff. Carbon capture and sequestration could be the answer, but again, it’s not even close to being ready for prime time, and there are a lot of questions as to it’s viability. Then there is nuclear. This is so obviously the ONLY serious technology currently available that could actually be deployed on the scale of our current energy needs that it boggles the mind…until you realize that the public has been super-saturated with anti-nuclear propaganda for pretty much my entire life time…leaving folks like Bo needed a serious 12 step program, as well as a course on probability statistics and risk analysis…plus a correspondence course in cost to benefit projection. To me, I’ll know that we in the US are actually serious about Global Warming when I see real initiatives to start building nuclear power plants to modern designs in this country…and when I see the playing field leveled wrt all those hidden costs due to law suits, protests and other forms of blockage go away. In the end it’s going to take a mix of energy solutions to ween us off of coal and oil…but if nuclear isn’t being seriously discussed as one of the major technologies then, IMHO, we aren’t really serious about GW. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/353 "2009-03-03T08:50:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I think I’ll leave it too you. Those reading along can form their own judgments on the various issues. Myself, magical roof top power and solar powered roads seem just a wee bit beyond our current abilities. Perhaps some day. Wrong again. I can tell you either did not read [my post #335](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10896439&postcount=335) or you are just going to ignore facts that don’t fit your view. You’ve been doing it for most of this thread, so no big surprise. > [@xtisme](#): > > Then there is nuclear. This is so obviously the ONLY serious technology currently available that could actually be deployed on the scale of our current energy needs that it boggles the mind… Wrong again. See [post #335](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10896439&postcount=335). We can build a 100 square mile solar farm with the tech we have now, and supply all of America’s energy needs. [cite](http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html) > [@US Dept. of Energy](#): > > Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs. > > **PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale.** The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules. > > A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the “brownfields”—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities—could supply 90% of America’s current electricity. You were wrong about the area needed (“whole states covered in solar panels” you said), and you are wrong about the state of the technology. You were wrong about how and why Nevada’s land is controlled by the federal government. You were wrong when you said that someone else built the Hoover Dam for Nevada. You’re basically wrong about almost everything you’ve posted in this thread, at least since I got into the discussion. I imagine you’ll keep throwing that NIMBY label around as if it means something, but I don’t see you volunteering your backyard to be a nuclear waste dump. You also keep saying you’re done posting in this thread, but you keep coming back and posting. Because of this, and the frequency with which you have facts wrong, I find it difficult to take your opinion very seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/354 "2009-03-03T16:28:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously…this is from YOUR cite. Even a cursory review of the data and even a passing knowledge of the history would show that, well, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about…again. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make statements that I can basically check out on a frigging iPod? Um… what exactly are you trying to say? Wiki says Congress declared only Yucca mountain would be ‘officially’ studied (because it had a clear political advantage). I’m sure the other sites had plenty of people spend a lot of time studying them, but in America if something isn’t ‘official’ it’s worthless and doesn’t merit consideration. Seems pretty fair to say we had our mind set on Yucca without a true scientific competition. I’m not sure the signficance of that, except to address that first point that there’s probably lots of good places to store nuclear waste left. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/355 "2009-03-03T16:37:19Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > We can build a 100 square mile solar farm with the tech we have now, and supply all of America’s energy needs. [cite](http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html)] No, electricity needs. Total energy needs are about four times greater. > [@](#): > > You were wrong about the area needed (“whole states covered in solar panels” you said) (100 miles)^2 is the size of Massachusetts or New Jersey. 50,000 sq miles for total energy is Pennsylvania. Factoring in future growth (we’ll have that, won’t we?) we may take over all of Nevada (100,000 sq miles). In all, we’ll need 2% of the US surface area today. 5% (or 10%) in the future, although increases in efficiency might bring that back down to 2%. It’s hard to say how I feel about that. Whether that’s a huge number or a manageable one. That’s about the surface area of our roads. (Which frankly surprised me. This factoid was also the inspiration for that roads-as-solarcells daydream). > [@](#): > > , and you are wrong about the state of the technology. You were wrong about how and why Nevada’s land is controlled by the federal government. You were wrong when you said that someone else built the Hoover Dam for Nevada. You’re basically wrong about almost everything you’ve posted in this thread, at least since I got into the discussion. Shh. I’m sure you’re wrong about plenty of things yourself. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/356 "2009-03-03T17:01:54Z")
[QUOTE=Alex\_Dubinsky] Um… what exactly are you trying to say? Wiki says Congress declared only Yucca mountain would be ‘officially’ studied (because it had a clear political advantage). I’m sure the other sites had plenty of people spend a lot of time studying them, but in America if something isn’t ‘official’ it’s worthless and doesn’t merit consideration. Seems pretty fair to say we had our mind set on Yucca without a true scientific competition. I’m not sure the signficance of that, except to address that first point that there’s probably lots of good places to store nuclear waste left. [/QUOTE] Bo claims no studies were done except Yucca Mountain. He’s wrong of course, and trying to play semantic games with what the word ‘study’ means doesn’t make him right. Again, from the Wiki quote (not that you couldn’t find all this info on the cites I gave earlier in the thread that Bo ignored): > [@](#): > > On December 19, 1984, the Department of Energy selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. This was based on data collected for nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a former nuclear test site. **The Act provided that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately.** If that should happen, the site will be restored and DOE will seek new directions from Congress. My emphasis. So, the time table here was…1984 selected 10 sites for consideration (including Yucca Mountain which had been under study and consideration since 1978). According to Wiki they had been collecting data on this for 10 years prior to this. A report was issued in 1985 regarding the 10 potential sites and, based on this report 3 sites were selected for further study…including Yucca Mountain. 2 years later (1987) it was decided that Yucca Mountain, being Federal land and the site of earlier nuclear testing (as well as a host of other ration reasons) was selected for final study leading up to approval as the sole site. Wiki doesn’t go into all the details of course (it IS a Wiki article), but it’s a fair summary. Bo is wrong…other sites were studied. Other sites were in contention for selection. Yucca Mountain, for various scientific and political reasons was at the top of the list. > [@](#): > > Shh. I’m sure you’re wrong about plenty of things yourself. Unlike Bo I’m not claiming he is wrong by fiat or simply because I say so…I think that, by and large the vast majority of his contentions in this thread have been SHOWN to be wrong, and not by my simple say so. His laundry list of things I’m ‘wrong’ about is fairly laughable…especially when he is merely contending my wrongness based on his own assertions. You and the others in this thread are, of course, free to make your own evaluations of that. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/357 "2009-03-03T17:18:03Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > No, electricity needs. Total energy needs are about four times greater. You are correct; I typed energy instead of electricity. I can only plead the late hour of my post in my defense. > [@](#): > > (100 miles)^2 is the size of Massachusetts or New Jersey. 50,000 sq miles for total energy is Pennsylvania. Factoring in future growth (we’ll have that, won’t we?) we may take over all of Nevada (100,000 sq miles). Those are comparitively small states (45th and 47th in size, respectively. And frankly, I’d rather see the vast interior of Nevada covered with solar cells and mirrors than with nuclear waste. > [@](#): > > In all, we’ll need 2% of the US surface area today. 5% (or 10%) in the future, although increases in efficiency might bring that back down to 2%. It’s hard to say how I feel about that. Whether that’s a huge number or a manageable one. That’s about the surface area of our roads. (Which frankly surprised me. This factoid was also the inspiration for that roads-as-solarcells daydream). Which brings us back to a point I made, and which **DSeid** acknowledged and backed up: we create a lot of artificial surface area (roads, buildings, rooftops, etc.) that could be utilized for power generation, but which is now just blank surface. There’s really no reason that our buildings and roads couldn’t multitask. > [@](#): > > Shh. I’m sure you’re wrong about plenty of things yourself. As my grandfather used to say: Once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. 😉 ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/358 "2009-03-03T17:35:34Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Wrong again. I can tell you either did not read my post #335 or you are just going to ignore facts that don’t fit your view. You’ve been doing it for most of this thread, so no big surprise. [/QUOTE] No, I didn’t read that post. Which part was supposedly relevant? Where you told me to ‘suck on that’ (interesting…I thought this would be considered an insult), where you claimed (again) by fiat I was wrong, or where you brought Al Gore into the discussion, despite the fact I hadn’t mentioned him? Or was it supposed to be this claim that 100 square miles in Nevada could magically supply 100% of our power needs for a year? > [@](#): > > We can build a 100 square mile solar farm with the tech we have now, and supply all of America’s energy needs. cite From your cite. > [@](#): > > Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs. > > PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules. I have no idea where these figures are coming from or how they are arriving at them (as was pointed out they are talking about electrical only, not total energy). Essentially your Al Gore link simply points back to this link, and they claim this without, afaict, and evidence. Even assuming it’s right though (:dubious:…highly), what does it really mean? It SEEMS like 100 square miles of solar panels should be pretty small potatoes. From Salon: > [@](#): > > Dear Pablo, > > I’ve read in more than one place that 100 square miles of solar panels in the U.S. would meet all our energy needs. Wondering if you thought this was accurate and, if so, achievable? > [@](#): > > Solar photovoltaic modules or panels convert beams of energy from the sun – photons – into electrons, which we can then use as electricity. According to Dan Berger, senior project designer at SPG Solar, we receive about 6.5 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per square meter of solar energy per day, or 2,373 kWh per square meter per year. At 12 percent efficiency, the solar panels generate 285 kWh per year. The average American used 12,000 kWh in 2003, so each person would need around 42 square meters of solar panels (about 450 square feet). > [@](#): > > At 12,000 kWh per capita, electricity demand is roughly 3.6 trillion kWh, or the equivalent of 1,200 coal-fired power plants running full-time. To generate 3.6 trillion kWh per year, we would need to install about 12.5 billion square meters of solar panels, or around 4,883 square miles. This is clearly a lot higher than the number that you had heard; about 70 x 70 miles. > [@](#): > > If we assume we can find enough land for all of those solar panels, would a project of this scale be achievable? A typical solar panel contains between 800 and 1,570 grams of silicon (the high-grade material with which solar panels and computer chips are made) per square meter. If we assume an average of 1,185 grams, we would need 14,812,500 metric tons of solar-grade silicon. The projected annual production of silicon by 2012 is 144,000 metric tons, which means that it would take over 100 years to meet our needs of silicon to make all those solar panels! And that is if we assume a complete freeze on computer chip manufacture and solar panel demand in the rest of the world. > [@](#): > > You might say that silicon supply rates will increase in the future, but so will the demand for electricity. Fortunately new solar photovoltaic technologies are coming onto the market, and use materials other that silicon, like cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium selenide. > [@](#): > > But there is another problem: The sun doesn’t shine all day. To get around this problem, we could build a global electricity grid and, since the sun is always shining somewhere, we should be able to get enough electricity. But this sort of dream project would require a very large investment and may not be technically – or politically – feasible for many years to come. For now, a sensible solution would be to store surplus solar energy generated during the day, and use it for off-peak hours (nighttime). That could be done by pumping water into uphill reservoirs, so that the energy can later be retrieved through hydroelectric turbines, as in a hydroelectric dam. And this was just with a cursory search. Seriously Bo…if it were as easy as you seem to be saying then, logically, someone would have done it. If you could meet 100% of the US’s energy needs by just putting up 100 square miles of solar panels, and if doing so were simple, then why do YOU think no one has done it? Sure, it could all be Bush’s fault HERE…but what about Europe? What about places like Japan who have huge energy demands and have to import a lot of their energy? Why hasn’t Australia done so…lot’s of sun there. Also, if you REALLY want to talk about solar, why not start a thread on it and take this discussion there? > [@](#): > > You were wrong about the area needed (“whole states covered in solar panels” you said), and you are wrong about the state of the technology. You were wrong about how and why Nevada’s land is controlled by the federal government. You were wrong when you said that someone else built the Hoover Dam for Nevada. You’re basically wrong about almost everything you’ve posted in this thread, at least since I got into the discussion. And you proved this all how exactly? Oh, to be sure, you proved it in your own mind. I remain unconvinced that you have proven me wrong on ANY of this…and if we are just going to assert things by fiat then my own assertion carries as much weight as your’s, ehe? > [@](#): > > I imagine you’ll keep throwing that NIMBY label around as if it means something, but I don’t see you volunteering your backyard to be a nuclear waste dump. You proved yourself to be a NIMBY knee jerk…I didn’t have to do a thing. As for your other statement, perhaps you were unaware of it, but I lived for 10 years in Las Vegas Nevada…and I was all for the project then. If the logical cite for the disposal was in New Mexico I’d support that as well. Unlike you I realize there are bigger issues at stake here than my own backyard. > [@](#): > > You also keep saying you’re done posting in this thread, but you keep coming back and posting. Because of this, and the frequency with which you have facts wrong, I find it difficult to take your opinion very seriously. _shrug_ So sue me. I’m posting as I find time to do so. Since most of the rational posters have left the thread I’m merely responding to your more outrageous assertions, though I’m admittedly doing so while watching restores happen or configuring RAID controllers, so I’m being even less rigorous than my normal sloppy self. Besides, it’s fairly amusing to see you declare over and over again how you are right and I’m wrong because you say so…when you aren’t laughing and chortling for reasons best left unsaid… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/359 "2009-03-03T18:04:38Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > The 10 sites **were not** studied. From your own “cite”: > [@](#): > > The ten sites **were** studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. (emphasis added in each case) Explain this. ---
**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:** [March 3, 2009, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035/360 "2009-03-03T18:09:40Z")
Started another thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10898978#post10898978) about solar power for anyone interested. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/470035.md?page=19)