Slashdot Mirror
Future Looks Bright for Large Scale Solar Farms
Hugh Pickens writes "The economist reports that Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems that capture and focus the sun's rays to heat a working fluid and drive a turbine, are making a comeback. Although the world's largest solar farm was built over twenty years ago, until recently no new plants have been built. Now with the combination of federal energy credits, the enactment of renewable energy standards in many states, and public antipathy to coal fired power plant, the first such plant to be built in decades started providing 64 megawatts of electricity to Las Vegas this summer. Electricity from the Nevada plant costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves. Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh but that will likely rise if regulation eventually factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces."
No. That would make sense. Common sense and reason are dead in our country. Dead. We do absolutely NOTHING that makes sense. We never change ANYTHING. This must be what Rome felt like in the end...A few people jumping up and down screaming at the top of their lungs while the majority stumbles around blindly patting themselves for being the absolute best...
http://www.google.co.za/search?q=%22deaths+per+year%22+from+coal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a Either 10000 or 100000, depending which link you follow. Google is your friend!
The final statement "... costs of the carbon coal produces.". Coal does not PRODUCE carbon when it is burned, it RELEASES it. Furthermore, if you take a picture of a 30 year old coal plant, and a 30 year old nuclear plant, you will see next to the coal plant a MOUNTIAN of coal that DWARFS the power plant; That is AT MOST a SIXTY DAY SUPPLY, and most of that is being released into the atmosphere. Look back at that picture of a nuclear plant; EVERY OUNCE OF FUEL IT HAS EVER USED IS STILL IN THAT PICTURE, in holding tanks within the plant. Now, the difference in their by-products is that, while the nuclear plant generates less waste matter, it is many times more harmful to us in the long run if not stored properly. Disasters like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are exaggerated; they're not likely to happen again any time soon. The REAL cost of TMI was that the plant was LESS THAN 90 DAYS OLD, and was planned to last at least 30 years. Thus the power company involved had to build ANOTHER BRAND NEW nuclear power plant right next to the old one, and causing them to inflate the price of electricity to cover the costs of both plants. We also need to be building less hydro plants that rely on blocking rivers to generate power, and more that run in tandem with a nuclear plant to pump water into an artificial lake on off peak hours, and generate electricity during peak hours by draining the lake into a nearby river. Even FRANCE primarily uses nuclear power, so why shouldn't we? Hell, we consume other Frenchish things; like fries and toast....
The anti-coal fanatics need to get a grip. New environmental implementations on coal plants make these units very environmentally friendly. The united States is the Saudi Arabia of coal - If we want to reduce our foreign dependence on fossil fuels - we have an answer in coal. Coal plant construction is at an all time high - so statements that we are "running away from coal as fast as we can" are ridiculous. Wind and solar are good ideas in concept - but are not ready to supply even a fraction of the energy requirements used by the US. We enjoy relatively low cost energy in the united states - if we keep up the process that make it hard to build the necessary capacity to serve the needs - we WILL see energy prices increase drastically.
>if it's just shipping it all to France, where they are disposing of the waste quite handily,
Sigh, instead of making uninformed comment like this, would it kill you to research the topic first?
A few facts:
- France has currently *zero* long term storage location: our politicians weren't able to pick one (the not in my backyard effect).
- Sure we have a good processing factory which is able to process the radioactive waste, it doesn't make radioactivity magically disappear and the 'waste from the waste' is sent back to the orginating country.