Americans Want America to Run On Solar and Wind

[nilepez]

Nuclear has a bad rep because it's had some bad accidents. People like to blame the technology, but bad government, bad utilities, corruption, graft, and greed have caused most of those problems. It'd bum me out a bit less if the anti-nuke crowd insisted on do it wisely or not at all rather than just not at all.

I've researched the alternatives, and the ONLY renewable power sources that come close to the power per square meter output of nuclear are big hydroelectric dams and potentially tidal generation facilities. Neither beat it, but hey do fall in the range of fitting in the footprints we currently use to develop our energy. Wind and solar don't. Not even close.

I think ultimately the way to go is a mix of all of the above. Preferably not going all in on any of them. We know hydroelectric has an environmental impact in some areas. I'm not sure about tidal generation, but if you can minimize the impact that's a really nice way to generate power. I'm not against nuclear, but I still think investing in solar R&D is important.

 

[malingjc]

Yea, CO is a huge IT hotspot at the moment. I'm tempted to take a position there though I don't really want to move to CO. While I support legalization of Pot I never have smoked or really even had the desire to smoke. I simply support peoples freedom.

Off topic: Univ of Denver is looking for a Linux guy right now. They have similar kick ass benefits to where I am now (Univ of Pittsburgh). I just figure it's a step back since I've been a Windows and VMware guy my whole career. While I can do most of the Linux stuff they'd need, I'm not moving unless I find a job I really want.

On topic: I got a test array of 15Wx4 on my roof. Two of the panels shorted out within a year and I made a whopping 19 KW/h of power this year with the remaining 30W. A whole $1.50 in production. It's just not worth it in a location where it's mostly cloudy/overcast over 50% of the time. It's just as depressing as it sounds too. Granted we relish in the few sunny days we do get.

 

[TwistedAegis]

But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

10 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

20 years later. But but but solar is right around the corner of becoming affordable and more efficient.

on and on and on..........

1977 price per watt: $76.77
2013 price per watt: $0.613

Ha, if that were true then why are solar companies going under or under performing?
Just read a report in the WSJ to not invest in solar companies because their stocks are diving.

Solar is expensive, only 11% efficient at it's best and they only last 20 years so by the time you pay them off to break even they are useless.

So are oil company stocks. The Saudi war on American shale gas and the American/Saudi war on oil prices to tank Russia's economy are sinking oil prices and thus makes many other renewables not look as good. But I think people are smoking crack if they think oil will stay this low.

Oh please. You act as if we haven't subsidized solar and wind for decades now. They're mostly a scam to give kickbacks to political supporters. You ever wonder how having near monopolies on power generation granted by states and the feds affects the market? A lot of people would lose a lot of money and influence if electrical power generation was cheaper and "off grid" as it were aka decentralized.

Wow, entire decades!? Excuse me while I laugh at over a century's worth of investment, likely trillions upon trillions, into fossil fuel improvements, not to mention massive kickbacks and incentives to oil companies. Anyone remember gov't employees being plied with hookers and blow to give cheap exploration contracts to the oil companies? (Sorry for gawker link, first thing that popped up)

http://gawker.com/5048194/shocking-oil-for-sex-and-cocaine-scandal-engulfs-federal-agency

I think ultimately the way to go is a mix of all of the above. Preferably not going all in on any of them. We know hydroelectric has an environmental impact in some areas. I'm not sure about tidal generation, but if you can minimize the impact that's a really nice way to generate power. I'm not against nuclear, but I still think investing in solar R&D is important.

Agreed. Honestly I think current generation nuclear, paired with saltwater treatment plants to make use of the waste heat is a great idea. But, the ultimate goal should be to build out renewables. Efficiency and cost have gone up and down, respectively, orders of magnitude in the past few decades.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Also, what isn't accurately measured, unfortunately, for either renewables or fossils or nuclear, are negative externalities. This would be pollution, health effects from said pollution, etc.

I guess as a center-of-the-road liberal I believe in capitalism, but traditionally those negative externalities aren't priced into things so the true cost isn't reflected in them. That's why you can get burning rivers from pollution just dumped into them. The problem is finding said true cost, then politics gets mixed in, and being against increased cancer rates and demolished mountaintops means you hate America and progress.

 

[wabbitseason]

Nuclear is the only viable future. That is all.

 

[Elios]

Agreed. Honestly I think current generation nuclear, paired with saltwater treatment plants to make use of the waste heat is a great idea. But, the ultimate goal should be to build out renewables. Efficiency and cost have gone up and down, respectively, orders of magnitude in the past few decades.

current plants make almost no waste heat worth any thing
you know what has REALLY great waste heat Molten Salt based reactors
current reactors use ether light or heavy water at very high pressure
which limits how hot they can get
molten salt can get you much much higher temps at ambient pressure

 

[HeavensCloud]

My town is alive thanks to Nine Mile nuke plant. We could sustain easily on wind if they wanted to though thanks to Lake Ontario.