We could stick them everywhere the sun DOES shine. It’s the cost. I’d love me a roof full of solar shingles instead of stupid ole water repelling shingles.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
That was a lot of work, but I don’t think many people are suggesting we get all our power needs from solar. Why would we?
[/QUOTE]
Right…trouble is that similar calculations show that trying to ramp up our current wind power to produce more than a few percentage points of our CURRENT energy needs are equally impractical. The US is one of the largest users of wind power, on a per turbine basis (if not THE largest…haven’t checked lately, we used to be number one in wind turbines deployed). Yet with all that investment it accounts for a percentage or two of our total electrical production. Remember that deceptive chart you showed that put nuclear power generated at ‘only’ 8.4% of our total energy? Wind was like .1% IIRC and solar was even less. And a lot of the best tier 1 and 2 sites are already in use, since they would be the most cost effective sites to build on.
Now…that doesn’t mean that no future sites exist to use. Far from it. But there are a finite number of really good wind sites available. And those wind turbines cost millions each, excluding the costs of building out the infrastructure (the roads and access, costs for the power infrastructure to concentrate and get it back to the grid, etc). And if you REALLY want to use wind as a primary source you are still going to have to figure out how to store the energy in a grid that isn’t designed for that (plus how to get wind power from out of the way windy places to the sometimes far away places where people actually live and need the power…this goes even more so for the big plan of putting solar panels out in the middle of the various deserts and then trying to get the energy back to where folks would use it or need it). And none of this even goes into maintenance costs. If you put up 100’s of thousands of turbines then you are going to need to be repairing them on a continuous basis. They are just machines after all, and they are going to break down. Put them out in the ocean as you were saying earlier and you are going to get the problem of access coupled with the problem from sea salt corrosion.
Just to get wind and solar up to where nuclear is today would be a monumental task…I don’t even think it’s possible. But that only gets you to 20% of our electrical energy production TODAY…and does nothing to cut into coal or other FF use. Nothing. If you and the other anti-nukes get your wish then nuclear will die on the vine, slowly fading away…so, you’ll be replacing a non-CO2 producing technology with, well, a non-CO2 producing energy source that comes with it’s own set of problems (like if the wind isn’t blowing, or the sun isn’t shining), and will have done nothing to that 45 or 50% of our electrical production that comes from coal. And while our own CO2 production seems pretty flat, the Chinese energy needs are just growing and growing…and they currently get 80% of their produced electricity from coal. And 15% from hydro.
And even with them adding 38 new nuclear power plants in the coming years, and the expectation that they will have a 10 fold increase in electrical production from nuclear by 2020, that’s going to account for MAYBE 10% of their total production at that time. Maybe. To offset that we need to take a huge bite out of our own CO2 production in the US…and the only way to do that is nuclear.
Or we can hope that all that Global Warming stuff won’t be as bad as the scientists think it will be. You don’t live on a coast somewhere, by any chance…do you?
-XT
Yeah, there’s a lot of rooftop space in the US. It’s too bad we can’t figure out an affordable way for utilities to lease their customers’ roofs and integrate their customers into the utility’s “solar grid/farm.” Sorta.
Especially on them hot sunny days, where you use a shit load of power just to run the AC, and the attic is hotter than a motherfookin bakery.
That’s being done now. Don’t ask for cites but there are companies in California(?) who build arrays on commercial buildings. I believe you have to have expensive daylight electricity rates to make it profitable. I’d be interested in a solar array that replaces my shingles. I know there are attempts at this on the market but it’s not cheap enough for me at this point. Someday.
I think we have to look at the best ROI today for our solutions. I don’t think we’re far off from battery powered cars and should be proactively gearing up for a 21st century power grid. I’m not worried about the new design of nuclear plants today so if they are price competitive then start building them. Heck, build them on military bases so we can protect them with anti-aircraft weapons. Whatever it takes.
Certainly the current news isn’t good for the Fukushima plant. They’re finding high radiation readings in the ground beneath the plants and they’re actively asking for outside help finding a solution. We’re sending over a massive cement snorkel pump so it looks like they’re gearing up for a cement sarcophagus scenario. We need to learn from what is going on today and apply it to older plants.
I’d go a step further and turn nuclear power production over to the military, or possibly create a nuclear power branch of the uniformed services. If people are really serious about their nuke power, they’re going to have to accept, and pay for it in the safest way possible.
It makes sense they’re preparing for it. I get the feeling the US really did learn some things from Chernobyl but the Japanese blew it off. Right from the beginning the US has had more of a sense of urgency about this. Of course, Japan is also coping with the earthquake and tsunami but still… their nuke disaster plan was
Earth Almighty, I don’t know what to think about that.
yeaaahh about that. The government has traditionally not designed things well. Look at the C-5A transport. It’s a model of government design and it didn’t go well. Compare that to the SR-71. Government is at it’s best when it sets standards and private enterprise works best when left alone. The 2 make make for a nice marriage.
I wouldn’t say they blew it off. This was a 9.0 earthquake. building sway was measured in feet not inches. The Japanese are probably the best prepared country in the world when it comes to tsunamis. But not only was the water higher than planned for the land mass dropped 3 feet. If the government had set the power plant standards to a 50 foot wave we’d be marveling at the engineering accomplishment.
Right. Let GE or whoever build it, then the military flies it.
They were very well prepared for the earthquake and tsunami I think. The nuke plant’s disaster plan though, was prepared for a 2.0 earthquake and 6" tsunami.
It was NOT a 9.0 quake at the nuclear plant.
It was a tsunami wave from a 9.0 quake.
I’ve made the points I’ve had to make in this thread mostly but would like to chime in with the cites for rooftop solar that Magiver alludes to.
The California program he means I think.
In Europe GM is supplying 1/3 of its factory’s power needs with a 12 MW rooftop system.
How muchpower could be produced from rooftop installations?
Both solar and wind could, and currently often do, utilize the same real estate that is currently being used for other functions (factories, farms, etc.) without negatively impacting those other uses at all.
Another clever multipurposing idea - long term though it might be - is using the surfaces of interstates
Again, the toolkit needed to wean ourselves, as much as possible, off of coal (and I use wean with some intention - weaning is a slow process, not something you do cold turkey) will need to be varied. I do not argue that solar or wind or any single approach is a sufficient answer. The precise mix that is most cost effective will be different in different locales and we handicap ourselves mightily if we are not prepared to at least maintain nuclear’s current market share as plants age out. But using a varied toolkit it can be done, even if the public’s reaction to this disaster makes new nuclear a no-go in the future here.
If the ptb spent a fraction of the money they spend on nuclear reactors, just a fraction, solar power would be all over the place. Especially in hot sunny areas.
Meanwhile, private money making businessmen are quietly moving on with making and selling affordable safe solar collectors.
No money in the world can buy 300 times the worlds production in any commodity. I don’t care what any small scale producers are doing.
Huh?
That statement flies in the face of our experience with technology in which we have seen televisions go from zero to well over 90% of American households in the 15 year period from covering just before the 50’s to the mid-sixties, and the much more sudden penetration of PCs and then smart-phones with touch screen displays, both also from near zero to massive penetration in very short periods of time.
If the money was there production can be ramped up extremely quickly. If the profit and the demand was there the same factories that make computer chips could be converted to make solar chips in a matter of months.
Solar will not be the backbone of America’s future energy production, and won’t obviate the need for a variety of other low CO2 sources (including in my mind some nuclear), but not because solar unit production couldn’t keep up.
The arguments ‘against’ solar are vast and ever changing. And oddly enough, sometimes they sound like the arguments against nuclear power. Sometimes.
Can a house use the sun to heat water, the house, and provide electricity? Of course.
(there are many many more of course)
So it’s possible to use a roof top to create and use energy for what’s underneath. Not just possible, but old news really.
So what’s the obstacle? First, it’s always money. (unless the location is far from a power line, in which case solar is cheaper)
Or if you are in the far north, where the sun don’t shine all the time.
But a lot of homes and businesses are in areas where it’s not only sunny, but the sun shines all day long. Every day. In fact, there is so much sunshine it’s a real problem.
I live in a desert where the sun shines during the day year round…even in the monsoon season we get sun most of the day. And I have solar panels on my roof. I will actually get a ROI out of them, too, because even though they only cover a fraction of my energy needs, the little bit I save each month will pay them off…because I bought them used and a very cheap price. Buying them new, though…well, the ones I was looking at buying new had a ROI of over 10 years (and I think that was being generous). That was several years ago, so perhaps it’s changed…but I bet it hasn’t changed that much. If it covered my entire energy bill each month it would save me, on average, something like $150/month (more in some months, less in others…water costs me nearly as much, especially during the summer). So, do the math…if I bought a fully installed solar panel system for my optimally situated house (for solar), and I paid $20k for it, what would my ROI be? Leave aside that the things don’t last forever, and require periodic maintenance and changing out of panels (plus corrosion of other parts) and pretend it will last for the whole time without costing anything additional…how long before the thing pays for itself?
-XT
What’s the ROI on a nuke plant? It won’t even start producing power for 10 years. At least you’ll be enjoying power for 10-20 or more years.
How about I sell you a nice, $100K complete deluxe primo solar installation and then I tell you that you have to pay for it now and I don’t have to install and turn it on for 10 years and if decide to never install it you don’t get your money back? Sound like a deal?
Solar was a much better option for you than building a nuke plant. You’d have your computer hooked up to a stationary bike generator right now and you’d be pedaling too fast to type.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
What’s the ROI on a nuke plant? It won’t even start producing power for 10 years. At least you’ll be enjoying power for 10-20 or more years.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on a lot of factors. Do the folks building it actually get to finish it? How much interference are they likely to get from the anti-nuke crowd, and in what form will that (inevitable) interference be? Lawsuits? Changes in zoning? Changes in ordinances? Changes in building codes and other compliance issues? Direct protest that interferes with construction? Massive community support to halt construction organized by anti-nuke groups? Something else?
As you say, though, once the plant is built then it’s going to have a long lifetime. 40 years at least unless a national disaster strikes the plant itself. Plenty of time for a decent ROI, considering that much of the cost for a nuke plant is capital expenditure, not recurring fuel costs that can vary. The best cost per kW/h is coal…nuclear is only slightly higher (between coal and natural gas IIRC)…but then the costs of coal aren’t JUST economics, ehe?
Sounds like a strawman. Now, if you said that you’d sell me a solar plant that would take care of all my energy needs today and projected into the lifespan of the unit, and that the up front capital costs would be large but that the operating costs would be small, but that it would take time to build then I’d say ‘sure’. If you said, ‘well, but the thing is, some group of nutters might take it in their heads to do everything they can to prevent you building the thing, will try to increase your costs at every turn and will attempt to turn the entire community against the project’ then I would probably be a bit more hesitant…which, interestingly enough, is the reason no one is building new nuclear plants in the US! Fancy that!
Seems to me it’s you pedaling for all you are worth. Hell, maybe they should just hook YOU up to the grid. Between the rapid pedaling and the amount of bullshit (which could be used for bio-gas) I’d say you’d be energy self-sufficient right there! 
-XT
neighborhood nuclear plant that produces 10 cents a kilowatt hour. It would cost about $2500 per household for a 10,000 unit community.