Slashdot Mirror

Computers are very much like cars... Either you learn enough about how they work, yourself, or you pay someone else to do it for you.

"should", I'd agree. "is" seems to be different.
Googling, and the modern "safe" way of life seems even deadlier.

Hmmmmm, from http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
"The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents."

Even some statistics that show that war is safer for the military than peace (because of auto accidents)

> That's just in the last YEAR! Now, say what again?

You want worldwide? Okay - 1.2 million people are killed every year by traffic accidents, and 3 million as a result of air pollution.

As compared to under 15,000 from terrorism.

Congratulations! You've just helped demonstrate that, even worldwide, the threat from terrorism is minimal. It's about 1% the risk of traffic accidents, and less than 1% the risk of pollution.

Check out the statistics and use a teeny bit of rational thought; terrorism just isn't all that dangerous.

How come it has not risen since 1988 ? Where did you take it off ?

2005 was the hottest year on record.

Check out the stats here: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Te mp_data.htm

You can see graphics here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Do you think NASA is making up data ?

It was an eye opener to many people. The great USA not being able to deal with an expected catastrophy. You people looked very backwards and primitive. Neither was your nation able to prevent most of the damage, nor was it able to provide adequate assistance. That is the non-performance people here in Europe associate with 3rd world countries. The countries affected by the last big Tsunami looked better organised and they realized they needed help urgently. European help was rejected with phony arguments, despite being urgently, and obviously so, needed.

Death toll from Katrina: 1420

Death toll from the European 2003 heat wave: 35000

Which is not to say that the U.S. didn't seriously screw up the whole Katrina effort, but it's awfully convenient for Europe, once again, to sit back with their smug sense of superiority when they can't even deal with a weather event this country faces every summer. As I recall, the French government wasn't able to help their most vulnerable citizens (sick and elderly) because the entire country was on vacation. 3rd world indeed....

Definitely obvious, but the reasoning is "trivial". Weather is not a stochastic process, but is linked to variables including (but not limited to) the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If you look in terms of only records, then your argument is correct. However, if you look at average global temperature rise, you'll note that while the global temperature fluctuates, the overall trend is a steady rise.

Certainly the United States does not suffer the kind of devastating water shortages that are common in many third-world countries.

Not yet. However a large part of the nation, including prime argricultural production areas, gets it water from fossil aquifers such as the Ogallala that are going to run dry eventually.

If not this particular company and technology, the prices they are giving are in line with most analysts' expectations.

Like a lot of other technologies, this one is going down in price in a predictable way. Check out the wind energy data at earth-policy.org, especially that last figure.

The sector has recently been experiencing Hockey-stick growth in investment. It's pretty much inevitable that this is going to be cheaper than coal- and likely cheap enough to make hydrogen for when wind is low. Cheap, guaranteed price, non-polluting.

Judging from nuclear's track record, it won't come close to wind. These turbines might not be the ones to put nuclear out of its misery- but wind certainly will play a large part (don't discount solar just quite yet).

big breaktrough that will reduce the cost of PV cells ... happening for decades

Indeed, we have. And you know what? Solar power is, inflation-adjusted, a quarter the cost it was in the 1970s. In short, the predictions of notably reduced cost have been *accurate*. If they keep remaining accurate, solar will become the cheapest power source available.

big breaktrough that will reduce the cost of PV cells ... happening for decades

Indeed, we have. And you know what? Solar power is, inflation-adjusted, a quarter the cost it was in the 1970s. In short, the predictions of notably reduced cost have been *accurate*. If they keep remaining accurate, solar will become the cheapest power source available.

You know your MMOG is successful when you have more players subscribing than computers in the country....

I, kid.. actually they had 36 million in 2002 and that should have doubled by now according to estimates in that link. Of course the US had 190 million computers back then so it is still a high percentage of subscriptions compared to number of computers in the country....

"Mars has about a 1/4 of Earth's gravity. That makes doing a bunch of sustained low g research extremely easy to do on Mars, while on Earth it is much harder to simulate for years at a time."

"Mars could indeed be very profitable if the right resources are there. But we won't know that until we get there."

"Earth's inhabitability will quickly diminish if the population rate doesn't slow down soon."

"We'll see Earth hitting theoretical max capacity within our lifetimes."

"Whether we want to or not, at some point soon we'll need to expand off this rock."

That is unless you don't mind draconian laws regarding reproduction.

What does not make short-term economic sense may make long term economic sense. For example from this article

The cost of wind-generated electricity at prime wind sites has fallen dramatically in the United States over the last 15 years--from 35 per kilowatt-hour in the mid-1980s to 4 per kilowatt-hour in 2001.

The reasons for the dramatic drop in costs is advances in technology and economies of mass production. In other words these production sources need to be bootstrapped.

However, the traditional energy producers are well embedded in the political process and receive favorable tax breaks, incentives and lax regulation. These benefits result in a situation where the full costs (acid rain, air pollution, global warming, not to mention skewed and demented foreign policy in order to secure foreign sources) of these sources are not directly borne by the consumers.

"Once China and India and Indonesia can get phone and power service to the medievil huts the majority of its population lives in, then I'd worry about the massive population difference."

And how far off do you really suppose this is? I give it around 20 years (barring some catastrophic collapse of the government there, where it doesn't dissolve and reform into democracy but instead anarchy and I don't see any good reason why this would happen). The cell phone, for instance, makes it insanely cheaper to give huge numbers of people phone service because all you gave to do is throw a tower up, no costly digging and wiring. What other inventions will they use to lift themselves from thier current "second world" status? It will be very interesting to see.

What will happen when countries like Tuvalu (.tv) reach technological savyness and find that their entire TLD has been used up by TV networks, ...

Well, by then global warming will have put all but a few square meters of Tuvalu underwater.

Seriously; here's a story about it from back in 2001. Tuvalu's government is asking other countries to accept the Tuvaluans as citizens, without much luck so far.

I found this and other reports on the topic fairly quickly by googling for "nation flooded rising ocean". I do remember reading about it when the story first came out, but it didn't get a lot of coverage in the MSM (mainstream media).

When their islands are finally abandoned, it's anyone's guess what will happen legally to their TLD. I'd guess that it'll be a "land grab" by various corporations, since the .tv domain has obvious commercial value.

The US can get halfway to a renewable energy driven transportation sector with currently available technology: gas-electric hybrids and wind power.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update43.htm

Array DC efficiency (ranges from 2% to 14%)...'30% efficient cell' becomes 14% DC efficiency.

if we need to cover the equivalent of texas/alaska with solar cells...

You can squint your eyes, stomp your feet, and don that helmet believing whatever you want, but reality is waiting when you want to join us.

Does any one know how much they spend researching, designing, and building this?

Does any one know how much they spend researching, designing, and building this?

Here's an article on wind power ; it links to a 2001 list of levelized costs for different energy sources.

Check out the Earth Policy Institute's article and data on wind energy growth and falling prices. Nuclear energy is growing 2.2% a year, vs. 30% for wind from 1995-2002. With increased production, wind turbines are going down in price- look at that last graph.

If you are not happy with those numbers, I suggest you produce your own.

The arguments you offer against wind are a lot of FUD. Noise pollution and bird deaths are much lower with new turbines- and aesthetics are not something I like to make absolute statements about. Wind won't solve all our problems outright, but it does solve some problems well, without expensive, toxic waste. The problem of regional production is not that big a deal since wind is actually quite close to the demand side for electricity- when it produces only 10% of the power, a grid with a good mix can handle fluctuations without a problem. By the time we are ready to move beyond that level, hydrogen will likely be cost-effective as a short-term storage medium.

One last nitpick: nuclear can not reduce our impact NOW. Nuclear plants are net energy negative for a long time- it takes a lot of time and energy to get them up, so they're only net producers months after they start producing electricity. The first order of business is conservation: it's orders of magnitude cheaper than nukes, or other forms of energy production.

Take lighting: compact fluorescents -I prefer LEDs- cost much less per saved megawatt, at a much lower capital cost than a nuclear plant. They're also much, much easier and faster to deploy.

If you understand compound growth, and economies of scale, you'll be able to see from the stats I linked that it is inevitable that the future will be powered by wind and/or solar. The nuclear lobby is trying hard to use climatic change to justify a new lease on life, but we shouldn't be fooled by their arguments when we have cleaner, cheaper power already available.

Here's an article on wind power ; it links to a 2001 list of levelized costs for different energy sources.

Check out the Earth Policy Institute's article and data on wind energy growth and falling prices. Nuclear energy is growing 2.2% a year, vs. 30% for wind from 1995-2002. With increased production, wind turbines are going down in price- look at that last graph.

If you are not happy with those numbers, I suggest you produce your own.

The arguments you offer against wind are a lot of FUD. Noise pollution and bird deaths are much lower with new turbines- and aesthetics are not something I like to make absolute statements about. Wind won't solve all our problems outright, but it does solve some problems well, without expensive, toxic waste. The problem of regional production is not that big a deal since wind is actually quite close to the demand side for electricity- when it produces only 10% of the power, a grid with a good mix can handle fluctuations without a problem. By the time we are ready to move beyond that level, hydrogen will likely be cost-effective as a short-term storage medium.

One last nitpick: nuclear can not reduce our impact NOW. Nuclear plants are net energy negative for a long time- it takes a lot of time and energy to get them up, so they're only net producers months after they start producing electricity. The first order of business is conservation: it's orders of magnitude cheaper than nukes, or other forms of energy production.

Take lighting: compact fluorescents -I prefer LEDs- cost much less per saved megawatt, at a much lower capital cost than a nuclear plant. They're also much, much easier and faster to deploy.

If you understand compound growth, and economies of scale, you'll be able to see from the stats I linked that it is inevitable that the future will be powered by wind and/or solar. The nuclear lobby is trying hard to use climatic change to justify a new lease on life, but we shouldn't be fooled by their arguments when we have cleaner, cheaper power already available.

I can't really find all that much I agree with in your statement, except the last line: I think I'd like to go back to being isolationists, too! :-)

I do have a question for you, though... isn't nuclear power our best bet right now? Some places don't have all that much sun and others don't have that much wind, but you can always ship Uranium in.

I can't really find all that much I agree with in your statement, except the last line: I think I'd like to go back to being isolationists, too! :-)

I do have a question for you, though... isn't nuclear power our best bet right now? Some places don't have all that much sun and others don't have that much wind, but you can always ship Uranium in.

Let's put this number in perspective for a second. According to death stats for 2001, on average 6,620 people died every day in 2001. 1,918 of those from heart disease - every day! How about the European heatwave of 2003? 35,000? 11,000+ in France alone? Not to mention we've lost 880 US soldiers in Iraq.

I've seen reports of Iraqi civilian casualties over the 11,000 mark. A people that we haven't even proved had anything to do with the attacks. Who's the terrorist now?

Yes, it's terrible that 3,000 people were murdered on a single day which also took down the WTC towers. The reason it hits you hard was because it was in one place in which you could watch it unfold on TV. Taken in perspective though, I don't think it's worth losing the freedoms and liberties that those who came before us fought and died for. To quote another famous figure in US history, FDR, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

There is a bigger issue with solar and wind than simply cost: total power output. Demand for electricity is not going to drop dramatically and in all likelihood will continue to increase.

Now what about wind... Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. With that comes, I assume, the expectation that every possible free tract of land had a windmill farm stuck on it.

~1kW per square meter is what you have to work with in solar energy. When you have 8-12% efficient solar panels, that means you can get up to 80-120W per square meter...for six hours per day in the desert without trackers...on a cloudless day... In areas with more cloud cover, shorter days in winter, etc. the numbers drop off dramatically. Then we calculate that consumer solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year of use and have a life span of ~30 years. Then keep in mind that you have to keep all of those cells clean -- more energy used for something besides keeping the lights on. Don't forget that you have to actually manufacture those solar cells which of course means clean rooms (the real reason behind the costs) and the aquisition and refinement of requisite building materials. And to top it all off, when you cover large tracts of land with solar cells, that land gets less sunlight. So yeah, we can all put solar panels on our homes, get by on what we get, and then deal with the health problems after a year with more than average rainfall causes refridgerators to cease functioning and food to rot.

Repeat after me: large-scale power cannot be a "good enough" proposition where a 5% shortfall is acceptable.

So I want to get a pencil and paper and work out the total amount of land area needed to sustain 3,848,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours (Yes! That's 3.848 trillion!) of electricity -- of which 53% of that currently comes from coal. Now if you come up with a calculation that if you completely covered the sunny state of Arizona with solar cells, it would still not be enough to replace just coal, you're on the right track. To top it all off, it costs about $30,000 on average to fit solar panels sufficient to power a typical house. How much would it cost to cover Arizona will solar cells?

Repeat after me: It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay. Solar and wind alone cannot do the job.

Solar and wind are excellent candidates for supplementary energy sources. They are great for providing primary electricity to many residences (provided that folks can afford the $30K price tag). However, most folks will still need the grid as a backup and supplement. Hell, I'd be bullish on solar if for no other reason than the effective elimination of large-scale blackouts. But it still remains a supplementary energy source. There is far more to electricity demand than making sure the microwaves and personal computers have power.

So what can produce that much power? Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. In the US, we have hundreds of years' worth of coal. Oil and natural gas reserves are far more finite and are needed for materials (plastics, vehicles, etc.). And that leaves us with nuclear. Existing models will blow through our uranium reserves in less than a century. However, models that aren't just a one-pass design can not only use existing nuclear waste, but also nuclear weapons material. AND they extend the pote

There is a bigger issue with solar and wind than simply cost: total power output. Demand for electricity is not going to drop dramatically and in all likelihood will continue to increase.

Now what about wind... Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. With that comes, I assume, the expectation that every possible free tract of land had a windmill farm stuck on it.

~1kW per square meter is what you have to work with in solar energy. When you have 8-12% efficient solar panels, that means you can get up to 80-120W per square meter...for six hours per day in the desert without trackers...on a cloudless day... In areas with more cloud cover, shorter days in winter, etc. the numbers drop off dramatically. Then we calculate that consumer solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year of use and have a life span of ~30 years. Then keep in mind that you have to keep all of those cells clean -- more energy used for something besides keeping the lights on. Don't forget that you have to actually manufacture those solar cells which of course means clean rooms (the real reason behind the costs) and the aquisition and refinement of requisite building materials. And to top it all off, when you cover large tracts of land with solar cells, that land gets less sunlight. So yeah, we can all put solar panels on our homes, get by on what we get, and then deal with the health problems after a year with more than average rainfall causes refridgerators to cease functioning and food to rot.

Repeat after me: large-scale power cannot be a "good enough" proposition where a 5% shortfall is acceptable.

So I want to get a pencil and paper and work out the total amount of land area needed to sustain 3,848,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours (Yes! That's 3.848 trillion!) of electricity -- of which 53% of that currently comes from coal. Now if you come up with a calculation that if you completely covered the sunny state of Arizona with solar cells, it would still not be enough to replace just coal, you're on the right track. To top it all off, it costs about $30,000 on average to fit solar panels sufficient to power a typical house. How much would it cost to cover Arizona will solar cells?

Repeat after me: It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay. Solar and wind alone cannot do the job.

Solar and wind are excellent candidates for supplementary energy sources. They are great for providing primary electricity to many residences (provided that folks can afford the $30K price tag). However, most folks will still need the grid as a backup and supplement. Hell, I'd be bullish on solar if for no other reason than the effective elimination of large-scale blackouts. But it still remains a supplementary energy source. There is far more to electricity demand than making sure the microwaves and personal computers have power.

So what can produce that much power? Coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. In the US, we have hundreds of years' worth of coal. Oil and natural gas reserves are far more finite and are needed for materials (plastics, vehicles, etc.). And that leaves us with nuclear. Existing models will blow through our uranium reserves in less than a century. However, models that aren't just a one-pass design can not only use existing nuclear waste, but also nuclear weapons material. AND they extend the pote

"Sunlight provides about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter, and most solar cells are between 8 and 12 percent efficient." - Wikipedia

As an exercise, find out how many square meters there are in the U.S. (or the country you live in). Now subtract the areas that are currently occupied like farmland -- which is already using the sunlight for other purposes. Don't forget that you can't just willy nilly go covering large tracts of land. Cutting off sunlight from large tracts of land could have local ecological issues: reduced heat, retarded photosynthesis, etc. Therefore, you have to spread them out in most cases therefore further reducing your energy collection/conversion potential. Also remember that solar cells have about eight hours per day of useful energy collection assuming you have a tracker. Subtract for cloudy/rainy/snowy days. Also keep in mind that most cells out there today are 8-12% efficient. In order to get widespread adoption of the 50% Berkeley lab version, you have to replace all existing panels. Don't forget that you have to keep them clean -- dirt is not a good photovoltaic. And finally, remember to calculate into all of this that solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year; In the best case scenario, a ten year old cell is only working at 80% of its original capacity. (Now is your chance folks! A perfect example where integrals can be used for a real world calculation. Calc 2 wasn't a waste of time for non-physicists after all!)

Compare the number you get with >3.7 million megawatt/hours, the amount used by the US in 2001 (according to the Department of Energy). Do the numbers add up? No. If you cut the used electricity in half, would the numbers match up? No. Will people voluntarily cut energy usage substantially? No. Do energy usage trends indicate a future increase? Yes. It's not personal, it's just what the numbers say.

It's not even a question of more research into solar cells. "1.36 kilowatts" is the average of a hard limit. No cell will ever convert more energy than it receives. The whole "energy is neither created nor destroyed; It merely changes form." The solar cell debate has never been about if they can produce energy but rather if it produces enough energy. For a single home that doesn't waste much electricity? Usually. For the whole residential, rural, and industrial U.S.? Not even close.

-----

Now what about wind...because I know someone's going to bring it up. Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. Now let's assume that this number is constant and not a maximum output. Remember, watts are an instantaneous measurement, not over time. This is why our energy meters read in kilowatt hours. Let's look back at the total U.S. power usage of 3.7 million megawatts. Wind is short by a third; It can't even replace coal (52% of all U.S. power production) let alone meet EPW's expectations that "Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy needs."

But what about wind along with solar? Well, you'd need to make sure the solar cells weren't shadowed by the windmills. Then y

"Sunlight provides about 1.36 kilowatts per square meter, and most solar cells are between 8 and 12 percent efficient." - Wikipedia

As an exercise, find out how many square meters there are in the U.S. (or the country you live in). Now subtract the areas that are currently occupied like farmland -- which is already using the sunlight for other purposes. Don't forget that you can't just willy nilly go covering large tracts of land. Cutting off sunlight from large tracts of land could have local ecological issues: reduced heat, retarded photosynthesis, etc. Therefore, you have to spread them out in most cases therefore further reducing your energy collection/conversion potential. Also remember that solar cells have about eight hours per day of useful energy collection assuming you have a tracker. Subtract for cloudy/rainy/snowy days. Also keep in mind that most cells out there today are 8-12% efficient. In order to get widespread adoption of the 50% Berkeley lab version, you have to replace all existing panels. Don't forget that you have to keep them clean -- dirt is not a good photovoltaic. And finally, remember to calculate into all of this that solar cells degrade by 2-5% every year; In the best case scenario, a ten year old cell is only working at 80% of its original capacity. (Now is your chance folks! A perfect example where integrals can be used for a real world calculation. Calc 2 wasn't a waste of time for non-physicists after all!)

Compare the number you get with >3.7 million megawatt/hours, the amount used by the US in 2001 (according to the Department of Energy). Do the numbers add up? No. If you cut the used electricity in half, would the numbers match up? No. Will people voluntarily cut energy usage substantially? No. Do energy usage trends indicate a future increase? Yes. It's not personal, it's just what the numbers say.

It's not even a question of more research into solar cells. "1.36 kilowatts" is the average of a hard limit. No cell will ever convert more energy than it receives. The whole "energy is neither created nor destroyed; It merely changes form." The solar cell debate has never been about if they can produce energy but rather if it produces enough energy. For a single home that doesn't waste much electricity? Usually. For the whole residential, rural, and industrial U.S.? Not even close.

-----

Now what about wind...because I know someone's going to bring it up. Allow me to direct you to The Earth Policy Institute, an organization with a decidedly alternative/renewable energy bias. (Not a bad thing, just making it clear that it has no reason to artificially lower their numbers to make wind look bad.) Their examination of wind power is quite optimistic. Pay special attention to their expectations: gathering hydrogen for fuel in cars, halting coal usage, etc. Now let's look at the data they used for that. They cite a total U.S. potential (not current, but potential) of 1,221,191 megawatts. Now let's assume that this number is constant and not a maximum output. Remember, watts are an instantaneous measurement, not over time. This is why our energy meters read in kilowatt hours. Let's look back at the total U.S. power usage of 3.7 million megawatts. Wind is short by a third; It can't even replace coal (52% of all U.S. power production) let alone meet EPW's expectations that "Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but all U.S. energy needs."

But what about wind along with solar? Well, you'd need to make sure the solar cells weren't shadowed by the windmills. Then y

The cost of electricity from solar cells remains higher than from wind or coal-fired power plants for grid-connected customers, but it is falling fast due to economies of scale as rising demand drives industry expansion. Solar cells currently cost around $3.50 per watt for crystalline cells, and $2 per watt for thin-film wafers, which are less efficient but can be integrated into building materials. Industry analysts note that between 1976 and 2000, each doubling of cumulative production resulted in a price drop of 20 percent. Some maintain that prices may fall even more dramatically in the future.(link)

The cost of electricity from solar cells remains higher than from wind or coal-fired power plants for grid-connected customers, but it is falling fast due to economies of scale as rising demand drives industry expansion. Solar cells currently cost around $3.50 per watt for crystalline cells, and $2 per watt for thin-film wafers, which are less efficient but can be integrated into building materials. Industry analysts note that between 1976 and 2000, each doubling of cumulative production resulted in a price drop of 20 percent. Some maintain that prices may fall even more dramatically in the future.(link)

It seems a significant percentage of the /. crowd prefers nuclear (fission and fusion) over your idea.

Sure, widely distributed smaller stations would make the whole grid more stable. If you use such things as natural gas cogeneration, it might also be cheaper than current systems and more environmentally friendly to boot.

At the end of the day, this debate will be settled if corporations are allowed to look for the cheapest energy solutions. The fact we're not building many more nuclear plants has less to do with NIMBY movements than hard economics: they cost more than coal and natural gas.

Cost-effective co-generators are getting better, and growing their market share. In my region, a mid-sized university is trying to have one installed, fighting against government regulators that would let the local monopoly simply add a turbine to one of their old plants.

Meanwhile, wind is dropping in price: from $0.38 per Kilowatt-Hour in 1982 to $0.18 in 1990. Prices are now under $0.06, and it is "projected that the average cost per kilowatt hour of wind-generated electricity will drop to 2.6 by 2010 and to 2.1 by 2020."

Additional wind and co-generation capacity can be added much, much faster than new nuclear plants can be built, and in smaller increments.

For all those reasons, a system like the one you describe is not only a good thing, it is the most likely one to happen.

It seems a significant percentage of the /. crowd prefers nuclear (fission and fusion) over your idea.

Sure, widely distributed smaller stations would make the whole grid more stable. If you use such things as natural gas cogeneration, it might also be cheaper than current systems and more environmentally friendly to boot.

At the end of the day, this debate will be settled if corporations are allowed to look for the cheapest energy solutions. The fact we're not building many more nuclear plants has less to do with NIMBY movements than hard economics: they cost more than coal and natural gas.

Cost-effective co-generators are getting better, and growing their market share. In my region, a mid-sized university is trying to have one installed, fighting against government regulators that would let the local monopoly simply add a turbine to one of their old plants.

Meanwhile, wind is dropping in price: from $0.38 per Kilowatt-Hour in 1982 to $0.18 in 1990. Prices are now under $0.06, and it is "projected that the average cost per kilowatt hour of wind-generated electricity will drop to 2.6 by 2010 and to 2.1 by 2020."

Additional wind and co-generation capacity can be added much, much faster than new nuclear plants can be built, and in smaller increments.

For all those reasons, a system like the one you describe is not only a good thing, it is the most likely one to happen.

Because environmentalists want to change a lot more than power generation. The big sources of greenhouse gasses aren't power plants so much as factories, the ones that make the things than we use to maintain our standard of living.

But even ignoring that, renewable energy sources have their own problems environmental associated with them. Going all solar or all wind, for example, means clearing a lot of land that might otherwise be natural wilderness.

You don't want us to be prejudiced against the views of environmentalists because of who they are ("tree-hugging hippies looking for a cause"), but you seem to be prejudiced against the views of non-environmentalists because of who they are ("money-grubbing fat cats looking for a quick buck").

http://www.3nw.com/energy/resources/wind_lead_epi. htm

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update24.htm

http://www.ptreyeslight.com/stories/apr20_01/energ y_plan1.html

You'll probably never know, since economists don't practice whole-cost accounting, don't recognize the triple bottom line, and governments don't consider ecological footprints when doing environmental assessments.

As those grating wacky culture jammers at adbusters say, economists need to learn to subract!