Slashdot Mirror
The Coming Energy Turnaround In Germany
An anonymous reader writes "Germany has decided to close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022 and embark on an energy turnaround that focuses on large increases in sustainable energy production. What will it take in terms of investments, and will it mean cost hikes for German consumers? Will it really mean more jobs in the 'green energy' sector? Quoting: 'Total investment over the next decade for such an energy turnaround is estimated to be roughly €200 billion (or almost $290 billion). ... At the moment, more than 20 new coal-fired power plants are being planned or already under construction; together, they would achieve a total output of 10 gigawatts and could, in terms of power supply, replace nuclear power plants that are still operational. But coal-fired power plants do not fit into the concept of the sustainable energy turnaround that the government has put forward.'"
Fusion is nuclear.
coal-fired power plants do not fit into the concept of the sustainable energy
You're just not thinking long-term.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Most of the green energy sources are not viable by themselves. They're too unstable. Wind gusts cause surges for wind power. Solar doesn't produce anything at night. The only one that sounds like it might be viable is wave energy, and that only on shorelines that are never flat.
So to fill in, you need nuclear, coal, or gas plants.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
slap those people down, Instead of stopping Nuclear power, why don't they use their brains and move to the next generation of nuclear power?
No, lets let FUD be the way we do things.
Idiots.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There's no "sustainable" energy supply large enough to replace them without massive subsidies. Here in the UK we can expect 30% rises in bills over the next few years directly attributable to Green policy AND STILL we will need to build peak capacity using traditional sources. Moreover, this extra capacity cannot just be switched on or off. It needs to be running more or less constantly. In other words, the "sustainable energy" initiatives we are implementing are an extremely costly folly. To replace one coal fired power station with wind, for example, would require covering an area the size of Greater London with turbines. Total insanity. Regardless, Germany will build more coal fired plants and buy French nuclear generated capacity to replace its own.
The only thing that can make that much power is approximately 8.26 bolts of lightning!
So, Japan got hit by an earthquake and the reactor failed, shit happens, without risk there is no gain... and we are going to run out of coal, the wind sometimes stops blowing, and there are weeks when it's cloudy, wave energy doesn't solve japan's problem in the least bit rofl. We have a path to energy with little trade off granted safety precautions. We just need to do a better job with radiation containment,our current stuff is obviously not melt down proof. Oh well, not like Germany is going to be the ones responsible for a breakthrough anyways.
What happened to fusion research??? This was the solve all when I went to school, also probably the only viable means of space travel.
Unless/until we can develop some form of industrial scale fusion, any of the base load options (nuclear, gas, coal, oil) are going to be necessary and will come with a serious environmental price tag attached. Solar and wind need to be developed and widely used but absent some miracles in battery technology and/or transmission losses (high temp superconductors) they will have limits.
If Germany wants to use fossil fuels instead of nuclear that is their prerogative but they are simply trading one problem for another one, possibly worse than the original. I don't really understand what they think they will accomplish other than to mollify people who are (reasonably or unreasonably) terrified of nuclear fission.
We tried promoting 'green jobs' here in oregon, with various tax and regulatory incentives. It was a failure... or, more properly, 'is' a failure, because it's still ongoing.
Nothing wrong with green jobs and alternative energy, as such; but they have to be generated organically from market forces and technological advances. If you attempt to force markets one direction or another with laws, you're going to end up with a less optimal economy. That happens with price fixing, tax subsidies, or any other type of coercion
If an alternative energy tech has matured to the point that it can compete with gas or coal in terms of demand and productivity, than it will naturally create jobs. If it hasn't, it's going to never going to be as good as what you're trying to replace.
Like all decisions driven by irrational fears, this is a bad move.
Germany already has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe (22 Cents/kWh versus 12 Cents/kWh in France, for example) and switching to super-expensive solar power and unstable wind turbines will prove to be eye-wateringly expensive, especially since there's very little energy storage capacity (eg. storage basins) and the existing energy transport infrastructure (ie. pylons across the country) is proving to be rather inadequate and has to be upgraded, naturally at huge economic and political cost (read: lots of NIMBY demonstrations).
Germans are very unrealistic about a lot of things (I'm German, BTW), and I think a lot of people are going to come down with a loud thump in this country when they're finally presented with the inevitable sky-high bills for all this energy utopia.
Hard figures: I'm reckoning on electricity prices of around 30 Cents/kWh in 5 years or so.
My 30 cents to the discussion.
Cheers,
Gerald
This will mean more and more hydrocarbons will have to be used to sustain the German economy. This is a hysterical political response from form uniformed and misguided environmental do gooders. I made an earlier post in another article about thorium reactors. These have no where the dangerous consequences of uranium/plutonium reactors. Thorium reactors have already been built in the US. But the reason why they never went commercial is because you cannot produce nuclear weapons from them in a practical sense.They better hope that fusion becomes viable soon. But I doubt it. People need to be more educated themselves and stop listening to lying politicians and self serving demagogues of fanciful ideologies.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Easy: One child family for 5 generations, population drops a factor of 32. Revert to burning wood.
"Will it really mean more jobs in the 'green energy' sector?"
Of course it will. If the government mandates that energy be produced in some way, somebody is going to actually have to work to make it happen, whether that way is solar, wind power, or hamster wheel power. Somebody has to feed the hamsters and clean their cages. Of course, demanding a hamster powered economy may destroy millions of other jobs, and destroy trillions in value generally, but you will have more jobs in the "hamster energy" sector.
For those looking at the energy crisis, it should be abundantly clear that we need to look at cheap carbon-free energy generation, and nuclear is the only feasible way to do that. Unfortunately, conventional nuclear technology has many problems from safety and inefficiency to cost and lack of scalability. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors address these issues and more, and every industrialized nation needs to look intently at this technology. It is the only way out of the conundrum of water shortages, Peak Oil, Global Warming, and all of the other energy related issues we now have. Ignoring reality is to embrace lower net energy, and therefore higher costs and the decline of civilization.
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
http://reserveenergy.blogspot.com/
Nuclear energy is the most efficient way to create electricity. Moving away from that means higher prices for the consumer (or higher taxes, which is basically the same).
If safety is the "concern", banning it will not solve any problem...will cause more...guess who will pay all those billions in Germany??? Will be spread among the 40 hs/week working people, in form of national debt, or taxes, or subsidies from the govt.
Cars crashes every day. Let's ban them! and then develop a green transportation system....
AFAIK, the role of the government is basically administer efficiently the country, making life EASIER for everybody.
Will they also stop buying power from France? It doesn't seem very green to cancel your nuclear plants only to keep buying nuclear power from your neighbor.
They aren't really dropping nuclear, they are exporting it across the Rhine to France. The analysis I've seen is the only way the Germans keep up with historic demand growth short of tanking their economy is to build more interconnects to France and let the French operate those horrible nuclear plants.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Keep it at one child per family for long and enough and population drops to 0. Problem solved.
yes, it was good while it lasted. Well for some of it. LFTR is the future, but we need the present nuclear power. Too bad Germany won't have it. Slaves to Russia.
I've always thought that the nuclear power plant disaster in Japan was the result of poor planning, not the fault of the technology itself. The plant went into emergency shutdown because of the quake but it was the tsunami that really did the damage because... they didn't think a tsunami that high was likely?!?!
I mean, come ON! Japan is one of the most earthquake-prone countries in the world due to their location by the Ring of Fire. The place where the quake happened was only a possible location for a quake and unlikely to earthquake predictors but given the still uncertain nature of earthquake prediction 'possible' should mean 'most likely to catch you with pants down'.
Which it did and rather spectacularly at that. So instead of a smaller tsunami from further away like they hoped--yes, hoped since they had to know about the place that did quake--they got a much larger tsunami that overwhelmed their protection. So instead of covering ALL possibilities they went for a cheaper solution to protect their coastal nuclear power plant.
Lesson learned? Find worst possible point where an earthquake COULD happen (no matter how remote), plan for something in the 9.0-9.3 range, then add a safety margin on top of that ESPECIALLY when you have a vulnerable nuclear power plant by the water. Do not say--oh, but that's unlikely to happen there. It DID so that is not something you had ever hear from a manager under your employ. Also, make plans so that your fuel rods can be immediately neutralized if your coolant feed is buggered. I'm pretty sure there are new designs that take that into account but the Tokyo plant was an older design.
However, the government's reaction in Germany is way overboard. Germany isn't part of the Ring of Fire, unlikely to have tsunamis or powerful earthquakes. Unless someone's been heavily skimping on safety measures I see no reason to shut them down on the basis of environmental disasters that are unlikely to occur there. Also, isn't coal itself somewhat radioactive (all things are but remember this is compressed plant matter) and that burning large amounts will be dumping free radiation as well as CO into the environment? (and unlikely to be considered because who thinks coal is nuclear?) That's what shutting down the nuclear reactors was supposed to prevent, right? Gah.
Quite frankly, if they are that scared of the old designs, they are fairly old in tech terms, there are much more safer nuclear reactor designs now with the intent of ensuring meltdown is far, far less likely to happen if not impossible. The fact that I don't hear anything about such new designs is likely someone's either terrified of shadows or getting paid off or plain stupid or all of the above.
waste of real estate and too little energy. The Blythe plant output sounds impressive, until you realize it can't take sunlight 24x7. So divide its 960 MW by four or more. That's a tenth of the power of modern two reactor nuclear facility that would take up less than a square mile compared to the 12 square miles it occupies. Then realize its $6 billion price tag. Compared to nuclear power, it's a farce.
Wait, what? While I thought doing away with nuclear in the hopes that solar and wind will be economical in the short term and not throw Germany's economy somewhere south of Greece was a bit hopeful, replacing it with coal? Really? Coal?
This isn't even environmentalism. This is just poor, emotional decision making.
Yes, technically coal is "renewable" via long term geological processes but you can breed crazy amounts of fissile material and recycle spent nuclear fuel so that's really not much of an argument.
Japan's new PM also intends to close down all of Japan's fission plants (though I didn't see a timetable) and I'm sort of worried that will just end up making more coal plants as well.
By 'restricted on a cost+ basis' you mean 'they can turn a profit redecorating the presidents office suite'.
It's not generally true anymore. Although everybody likes to talk about CA, electric power markets are more then likely running your computer today, most without incident.
Cost plus did produce electric companies that acted suspiciously like governments. The new model is much better. They are back to being competitive business'. No more running ancient plants because they were paid for.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"This will mean more and more hydrocarbons will have to be used to sustain the German economy."
The neighbors can alleviate that problem:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
These aren't environmental do-gooders, they are right-wing populists acting based on what the mob wants. There's a difference.
Where do you get the Thorium from? Will there be no nuclear waste? What would you do with the existing plants?
I am not against nuclear power in itself, I recommend it for those cases where it really fits. As there are serious alternatives there is no need to use nuclear power. It just doesn't fit.
The costs will be high, sure. But a significant amount of this will be an investment in a structure, which is overaged and not really suitable for todays use, an investment, that has to be made irrespective of migrating away from nuclear power or not.
cb
Thorium reactors have already been built in the US
Where?
Many claims have been made - most of them center about how "oh, the NEW way will be better".
Yet the way Corporations act (and the humans that run the Corporations act) are a big part of the failure modes of nuclear power. How does Thorium fix the way humans behave?
How does Thorium get electrical power to *ALL* of humanity? How do these Thorium reactors work in North Korea? Afghanistan? Sudan? Syria? Lebanon?
Why not try for a solution that ALL (or as many as possible) of mankind can use?
I live in Germany, and I've been following this closely.
First of all, a former government had already decided on a stop on nuclear power, at a much earlier date. The current government reversed that as one of the first major things. It took Fukushima and a huge public outcry for them to reconsider.
So that's the first scam - those who are now hailed as the ones leading Germany into a brighter, greener future had to be forced to walk that path.
The main replacements for the nuclear plants will be coal plants. Which, as everyone familiar with the subject, put out not only more CO2, but also more radiation. Their advantage is that they are less likely to fail catastrophically with nuclear fallout. That's the second scam - energy generation in Germany will actually be a lot less clean and less green.
The choice to go with coal is mostly due to the responsible people clinging to the "baseline" concept, which says you need a certain amount of power stations that output the same amount of electrical energy no matter what the time of day, climate, temperature, season, etc.
That's the third scam, because it is an outdated model. With 21st century technology and systems, the variability of alternative energy sources can be compensated over types or distances and easily create a reliable baseline equivalent. However, those are distributed, decentralized systems, and the technology and business models of big power corporations are designed for large, centralized power stations. They need time to change (if they even want to), and the government has been nice to give them that time. Did anyone yell "campaign contributions"? Please... you have such a bad image of politicians...
Viewed as a whole, the entire thing is a game to stay in power and to find a middle way to please both the corporate sponsors and the voting public. But it has no vision, no conviction and no drive. With the next election, or if public opinion changes, everything will be up for grabs again.
When you read something about politics that mentions a far-future date, always count how many elections are inbetween now and then...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I admire efforts to protect the public but coal is a killer. Tidal energy is enormous. Solar is wonderful and windmills can do a whiz of a job. For those that think there is not a lot of wind get up in the air a couple of hundred feet and things seem quite different. The coastal US has wind over the oceans that never quits and tidal energy as well.
We have an outfit that is zapping our garbage mountains with great energy and converting those mountains of trash into energy in excess. Frankly we are swimming in a sea of energy if we only have the sense to harvest it.
After 50 years of neutron bombardment, even the concrete and steel of the containment is radioactive. What are you going to do with THAT? Bury an entire nuclear reactor in hard steel containers in the desert? What is that going to cost? Until you factor in the full amount of these costs we have no idea at all about what nuclear energy costs. The cost could even be prohibitive. We just don't know.
If they want us to respect their engineering, they have to think about these obvious details before they break ground on a plant. If your plan is to "wing it" I don't want you building a nuclear plant in my area.
And for goodness sake don't accumulate 50 years worth of spent fuel and store it in the shed out back like it was rusty farm implements.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It is worth noting that the somewhat next generation nuclear reactors, (the AP1000 and EPR) have had construction problems. It will be several years before any of those reactors get built, and run for a while to determine the major bugs. In other words, wait several years on nukes, so can avoid buying first version of the up coming nukes.
The world has settled on very very very expensive, highly highly highly radioactive uranium to power nuclear reactors, so that we get neeto byproducts like being able to build nuclear bombs and blow other people to kingdom come! This has left us with a nuclear power grid that is fragile (one worker in Arizona switches off a single piece of equipment and 4 states go dark), dangerous, expensive and unable to scale into the 21st century. World war 2 started --in part-- as a fight over oil, and was ended with --in part-- nuclear weapons. Since that time, nuclear power has been used to power the world. Very expensive uranium. Thorium is wildly cheaper to build a plant for, burns much more completely, can be made intrinsically safe (if there is any kind of failure, reactions automatically stop with no external intervention, produces a million times less waste, and the waste that is produced has very short half lives --one reaction product has a half life of 12 minutes, the other about 90 minutes). We have tried one of the more dangerous types of nuclear power for about 50 years. No one wants to try a safer way.
focus so much on a single pet tech that they have, and believe it to be the answer to all problems.
Good point. I've been accused of this before, then I generally point to them where I've pointed out that my 'ideal' electricity mix for a carbon-neutral future is around 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, 20% 'other'.
My problem is that I get caught up defending nuclear against the solar/wind fanboys.
I tend to not include too much gas generation from things like organic waste because I envision that being used for mobile applications like cars.
I don't read AC A human right
Tidal energy is enormous.
No, it's not. The largest tidal plant in the world averages 96 megawatts. That's a tenth the output of a nuclear unit. There are only about ten good sites for tidal plants in the world, the Bay of Fundy being the best. You need a bay you can dam. Schemes with floats bobbing up and down to extract power cost too much for the energy produced.
Windmills can do a whiz of a job.
Only in specific locations. Here's the detailed wind map of the US for wind power siting purposes. There are four good locations in California, and all four already have wind farms on them. There are lots of good wind locations in the Great Plains states, but most of them aren't near areas that can use the power. Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio have real potential. East of the Rockies, forget it.
Well, the Germans did try a commercial Thorium reactor in the 80s. It was perfectly safe until those pesky environmentalists started measuring radioactive isotopes all over the place (after Chernobyl) and found isotopes that are only produced in Thorium reactors.
I figure the Japanese PM's position is more one of placation - once the economics are pointed out to him, it's make vague promises until he's out of office and/or the issue is forgotten.
That would be separate from making serious upgrades in Japan's nuclear safety programs, of course.
I don't read AC A human right
That's so obvious that it slipped past me: The new coal power plants are not built because of Fukushima. They have been planned long before Fukushima because the management of the companies that planned these power plants believed that they would be economical because they use cheap Australian coal. Planning a power plant takes years.
Gorgonite
Actually, I think part of the reason governments have been slow to adopt Thorium reactors (in addition to the insane inertia associated with nuclear regulations in the US) is that the technology used in a Thorium reactor is quite similar to the technology needed to enrich Uranium to weapons grade. So nobody wants Thorium reactors to be widespread across the world, and it's actually probably the only obstacle I see to what is an otherwise phenomenally good energy source.
Also, Germany does invest a ton in fusion, as I can attest to, being an American physicist who just moved here to work in one of their world class fusion labs. :)
Is China's population declining?
The panels and turbines will be constructed in China in factories powered by coal fired plants. They're just moving the problem somewhere else.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Just to clean up some misconceptions:
This 'Energy Turnaround in Germany' was only a panic reaction to Fukushima insofar as the governing parties were concerned: The 'Anti-Atomkraft'-movement has been going strong here for decades and actually was prtly responsible for a now mainstream political party. When the Greens party was part of the federal government, the 'Atomkonsens' of 2000-06-14 and the 'Atomgesetz' from 2001-12-14 would have resulted in turning off the last nuclear power plant by ~202 as well. The current government just retracted the law to accomodate their clientele and it took Fukushima to change their stance again.
Germany exports more energy than it imports. You could pull the plug on all of the old nuclear plants (and for various reasons - like incorrectly installed anchor bolts in Biblis - there were times when most actually were off-line) without affecting German infrastructure. Even the newer ones are probably only necessary during peak periods and for safety reasons, and it might well be possible to create the necessary infrastructure to allow smaller, de-centralized plants to replace the base load capacity of the nuclear plants.
As an aside, I don't really understand people arguing against moving away from nuclear fission for energy production: Using a technology which
- produces toxic wastes we have no way to safely handle
- can't be shut down in case of emergencies
just does not seems very reasonable to me. Considering the date, just think about what might have happened if terrorists had targeted nuclear plants instead of 'just' office space (no disrespect intended).
Energy is important. The policymakers wouldn't be so stupid that they put their energy future in hands of green hippies? Like solar power and wind is never going to generate enough energy to power anything. Like the sun is too far away, and wind also relies on sun's energy. So given this information, I conclude that they must have some alternative solution which actually works. And nuclear industry is gone as a result. The real trick is that they didn't tell all the hippies what is their alternative to nukes. Probably because it's so dangerous and evil that they would get immediate response from the hippi movement. It's good to know they have some alternative solutions for the problem, but it would be nice if they actually told us what their solution is. The sustainability green crap is just a cover for something more important. Going back to 50's when coal was cool technology is not going to work; we already have enough computers available that powering them really requires some heavy stuff. (and computers aren't even the most energy-using area). So they must have some nice solution coming. We'll wait and see how long they can keep the secret.
Keep in mind the plants under construction where planned long ago and the plants planned right now as well are in the planning stage since a few years.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Talk to their CEOs (off mike) and you'll be surprised how enthusiastic they are.
Wind power is (as TX has been finding out in past months) flakey. Most of the time, when you need it most, it's not there - and spot electricity prices spike. At other times, a glut of wind power can cause spot prices to crash. This causes an increase in the *volatility* of spot prices. Large, industrial contracts are priced (in part) on volatility - big customers want certainty. Meanwhile, the big electricity companies fill those contracts using lignite ("woody coal") fueled power plants - just about the dirtiest stuff you can burn commercially.
Step 3. Profit!
Will it really mean more jobs in the 'green energy' sector?
No, but it will mean lots of new jobs in the French nuclear industry when Germany has to ask them in desperation to buy power.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Germany had 2 thorium reactors, a very small one and a large commercial one. Both went rogue and needed emergency shut downs, the commercial one nearly caused a GAU. Thorium reactor technology is no where in a stage that it can be deployed and replace older reactors. After all research on them stopped over 30 years ago.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is a boom to the working and middle class. The workers are not going to receive McPay or GatesPay but there will be lots more jobs for them and these will span over a large number of fields. There is no lock out in solar energy. This allows for small business people to create power related companies. Also, Germany has made a successful push in adding solar energy to their grid. Moving away from nuclear power isn't going to hurt them.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The problem with the Germans is that they are nuts - their history has repeatedly shown it - and imagining they can power the entire country with wind and solar power just follows the long line of craziness which so typifies Germany.
It also has no plan to dispose of the radioactive waste created - not just the fuel, all reactors create many tons of radioactive steel or concrete also.
For that matter fossil fuels have no plans to dispose of much of the waste they create either. We simply dump fossil fuel waste into the environment and pray that the consequences aren't horrible. If you think nuclear creates a lot of waste, fossil fuels create MUCH more. The only difference is that the fossil fuel waste is generally less acutely toxic but it is potentially more damaging in the long run.
The point is that none of our current base load options are good ones. Nuclear fission and fossil fuels all come with huge and currently intractable problems. The only conceivable replacements are currently either science fiction or cannot economically scale to sufficient levels.
After 50 years of neutron bombardment, even the concrete and steel of the containment is radioactive. What are you going to do with THAT? Bury an entire nuclear reactor in hard steel containers in the desert? What is that going to cost?
A lot. So will disposing of all the waste from fossil fuels (including carbon). There is no free lunch here. Any energy solution will be expensive if you include all of the costs including disposal of waste products. Right now we are simply living out the Tragedy of the Commons and praying that things won't turn out horribly. I'm not optimistic about that plan.
If they want us to respect their engineering, they have to think about these obvious details before they break ground on a plant. If your plan is to "wing it" I don't want you building a nuclear plant in my area.
I would say the same about a coal plant. You have any idea how many people die each year from pollution from fossil fuels? It's not trivial. So (literally) pick your poison. Would you rather die from an unlikely but serious radiation spill or a steady stream of particulate and gas pollution. Right now you only have the two choices in most parts of the world.
AFAIK, in Pend Oreille electric rates are $24.50 (flat) + 4.5cents/kWh which for 1000kWh would be
$69.50. The same 1000kWh in Spokane (Avista) would be $71.79.
http://173.236.244.134/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Electric-Rates.pdf
http://www.avistautilities.com/services/energypricing/Documents/Rates_One%20Sheet_3%2010_FINAL.pdf
Of course the price of obtainly electrical energy varies per locale (near a dam vs nuclear vs coal or natural gas power plant) and thus market based pricing generally doesn't follow a linear relationship like pend-oreille . Usually the first few kWh's are cheaper than when using significantly more than your baseline usage to offset the cost of maintaining the capacity to provide more than base-load power on demand (which is harder for a larger utility). If your utility is getting power from a dam, you get the price of the electricity from the dam, if you are a bigger utility, you can't just rely on a dam, but need more power plants (which are probably more expensive than hydro) and need to factor that into pricing.
Perhaps you are simply looking at the marginal cost of a kWh and saying it's 3-4x more? What makes you think Pend-Oreille rates reflect the marginal cost? It seems as if the final bills are nearly the same for 1000kWh/month...
historical example: Many of the early Roman emperors were effective, less so as the empire declined
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
cool coal dumps more uranium into the air than nuclear ever could achieve
In 2010, Solar PV accounted for 2% of all electric power generated.
Fandroids hate facts.
.. if you are going to invest in nuclear you have to invest in Thorium breeders, less waste and a more plentiful fuel.
You got that I'd be building standard Uranium reactors from 1 line? I'd be building a mix of standard, breeder, and yes, thorium.
A solar thermal plant melting the central tower because of shoddy engineering is an unfortunate loss ... a molten sodium cooled breeder springing a good leak and melting down into the ground is a huge fucking disaster.
Are you aware that many of the newest solar thermal designs are going to use molten sodium themselves, as a thermal storage system in order to be able to provide power at night and possibly during cloudy days?
As for springing a leak - the whole reason to go to molten salt is that it enables higher temperature reactors at environmental pressures - no pressure vessel to possibly burst. After that you only have to worry about corrosion. Even then, reactors typically come with multiple 'pan' like structures to capture any leaks.
I don't read AC A human right
But your tendency to ignore both hydro and geothermal is annoying. Neither of those things is science fiction.
Stop wasting time being annoyed and read *everything* I wrote. I said " The only conceivable replacements are currently either science fiction or cannot economically scale to sufficient levels". Note the last bit about scaling economically. That bit applies to geothermal and hydro for most of us.
Both have been around for a long time and neither provides more than single digit percentages of our energy. Even if we damed every river in the world (a very stupid idea and very environmentally damaging), it still would not replace fossil/nuclear. Geothermal is not available in sufficient quantities in much of the world. It's great if you live in Iceland or near some active volcano but most of us do not. Both are useful power sources with some real advantages but they aren't going to be more than relatively small pieces of the puzzle for most of us.
Speaking for myself, I do not live in an area where geothermal power is economically practical, and all the rivers that can/should be damed near me already have been. I have about 20 dams within a 10 mile radius of my house. I'm already getting as much base load from those sources as I'm going to get without some technological miracle and what I get is far less than 10% of my power.