Reactors are the only other major use of these materials. If we shut down the world-wide nuclear power industry - and supplant it with renewables (for instance), it becomes very easy to manage the flow of nuclear materials, there world becomes a much safer place.
Uranium isn't the only weaponizable material. Many of the fuels or waste materials of breeders, pebble beds, etc can be used to form a critical mass.
In the past the concern was other nation-states having nuclear weapons. Shared mutual destruction was sufficient to insure safety. We are coming to a point, that the technology is so easy given sufficient nuclear material generation, and lots of plants world-wide, that individuals and groups could have their own nuclear weapons. Well guess what, they don't care about their own destruction. Of all the things too be worried about in the post 9/11 era, nuclear is the one that should be concerning (not the nonsense the bush administration has hyped).
I just have a hard time accepting this "no we can't" mentality. Your whole argument boils down to what might happen, even though it never has in any Western nuclear power plant.
No. Understand what might happen is called statistics, and it is a fundamental requirement for any engineering project. Too bad few engineers did well in their stats classes. There is no such thing as 100% safe, and the repercussions with nuclear are very serious.
The notion of no problems with western nuclear plants is just misinformed. Many very serious accidents have happened, and we've just missed a huge accident numerous times. Please browse the incident databases.
And how much more expensive is coal and oil when you factor in all of the aforementioned environmental impacts?
Nuclear power is expensive even when *not* considering all externalities, that is why many utilities have decommissioned plants over the last 20 years, they were too expensive to run. All cheap energy numbers you see for nuclear is pie-in-the-sky academic hopeful thinking - certainly not including the 1 trillion dollars in federal investments, subsidies, loan guarantees, insurance opt-outs, and research that have been dumped into nuclear over the last 40 years.
And how many of those windmills do you need to produce the same amount of power that you can obtain from one nuclear power plant?
Ahh. You unwittingly pointed to one of the biggest *weaknesses* of nuclear - centralization! Distribution of power is larger and more expensive problem than generation. If fact want you want is lots of small mass produceable power generators distributed around the grid - just like wind and solar. Let me rephrase your statement: How many of those home PCs will you need to replace this central mainframe? (get it?)
What will the environmental impact be of removing that much energy from the atmosphere?
None. You can't remove significant enough amounts of energy from the wind or sun to even compete with the impact of buildings in cities and towns.
How many migratory birds does the typical nuclear power plant kill?
More than windmills. All bird studies have shown that buildings (which would include nuclear plants), kill far more birds than windmills. Why? Windmills move alerting birds to their presence. No they are not bird blenders, If you've seen a modern windmill they move sloooow.
The point is wind is cheaper than nuclear, some kinds of solar are on par with nuclear. They are distributed generation technologies, no waste, no proliferation, no major saftey and security concerns... why should we dump a lot of cash in nuclear?
Nuclear weapons are essentially 1940s garage science. A gun type nulcear weapon, like "Fat Boy" used in WWII are nothing more than a large pipe bomb: two halves of a critical mass placed at either end of a pipe, with an explosive to propel one into the other.
It is the most efficient? No. Does it work? Yes. Even when using Pu isotopes, gun weapons will work. Yes they pre-ignite. But that isn't a bad thing, it means the weapon will explode guaranteed. So what if it's only 1kton explosion instead of a 100kton - the effect will be the same from a terrorists view.
So what is the hard part? Getting the fissile materials. For that you need nothing other than one of a number of nuclear reactor designs. For this reason alone, the US should lead the world in not using Nuclear technologies. 9/11 was nothing compared to even a sucky nuclear weapon.
A fundamental problem with nuclear reactors is by the law of physics you either get lots of nuclear waste, or weaponizable waste. Why even go there when renewables are either already competitive with nuclear, or close (and solve all sorts of other problems with nuclear besides waste)?
My Geo Metro has a 51Hp engine, gets 50 MPG, and cruses at 75 MPG on the highway. I live at 9000 ft elevation and commute down a mountain to 4500 at steep grades. It goes as fast as you'd want to on mountain roads with 3-4 passengers. Yes its no drag racer, but it goes from pt. A to B efficiently and reliably. Besides it cost me 1/10th of a hybrid and gets the same milage. We love it.
Now imagine making it lighter and hybrid. No Doubt 20 Hp is sufficient.
The democratic party has been more in favour of big government, and therefore anti-civil liberties. This always repeated but has no basis in reality. The last three decades show that both republicans and democrats like big government. The republicans like to spend on military, and the democrats like to spend on social policy.
As it turns out military is a whole lot more expensive, and every time we have a republican in the white house we are driven into a giant red hole.
Barack Obama's voting record is the single MOST LIBERAL of anyone in the Senate. In other words, in the world-wide political spectrum, he is still a little right of center.
It would be nice to have a serious candidate in the US that could be honestly called a liberal.
1. Why should we power ourselves with outrageously expensive sources? I'm not arguing against subsidies for research and development purposes; but to convert over to solar or wind at this stage of the game would bankrupt this nation in a year. How about waiting to convert until we actually have a technological approach that makes economic sense?
Yes solar is more expensive than coal/oil/etc. But it is not more expensive when you add in the external costs.
It is clear that our current strategy fossil strategy is bankrupting us. How many wars can we endure to secure critical off-shore energy resources, and at what cost? The balance of our economy and security rests with unfriendly nations and despots. The CIA report on Energy a few years back spelled out the future with the rise in Oil Demand from China, India and others: the future of international conflict will revolve around energy resources. And that should be no surprise to even the most casual observer: the history of the last 15 years of conflict has been about energy resources.
And of course there are other external issues that cost from environmental destruction, to air pollution induced health problems, to global warming.
These are all real costs. I'm all for removing subsidies. People should be responsible for their own usage. But it has to be applied across categories. Unfortunately Americans don't have the stomach for $9/gallon gas and 30 cent/kwh electric that comprise all of the external costs.
Wind even without the external costs right now is competitive with coal on a global basis. In texas right now you can sign 10 year wind contracts that beat *todays* coal electric prices. It is true that we already have an infrastructure, and unlike my simple example, we won't convert all in 1, 2 or even 10 years... But it is the only sensible out when considering all the issues.
The point I want to get across is the technology is now. With $30,000 of energy/year falling on everyones roof at current oil prices, and the average roof capable of 6 times the production of the average house electric demand (with current tech) - There is no revolution that needs to happen. Only market volume increases, only then will prices come down
2. Your energy conversion rate doesn't assume the typical losses of wind and solar conversion, as well as power (voltage) conversion. Drop the energy you get by a factor of 10. So it's a little over $30 trillion, about twice our GDP.
Nope, conversion efficiency included in $3 Trillion total.
a) $2 buys a watt of peak power capacity. b) That watt of capacity will produce 2000 watts/year in an average US location c) It would take 2 Trillion peak watts to product 4 Trillion kWh/year d) That would cost $4 trillion (if solar alone), $3 Trillion in a 50% wind mix - equivalent to 1.5-2 Iraq wars e) The install area to produce all of the US electric need would be 1/3rd of the US roof top space (according to the US census data) with current technology f) That cost assumes free electricity production for all. Which is silly, the actual investment is much lower if you consider keeping the electric rates the same. (and to pay the remaining BOS)
I think the sane thing to do is to keep researching, start moving now to lower cost/subsidized solutions (nuclear and hydro), and when solar or wind becomes commercially viable, begin larger deployments. Because right now, the wind and solar suppliers would be out of business in a matter of weeks if it wasn't for the huge subsidies they receive.
Before california subsidies the PV market was growing at 25% a year for 20 years on average - essentially all free market driven (tiny federal incentives). After the California incentives its growing by 50%. So yes, subsides have an impact, but pre-subsidy, 25% is quite good.
But, understand that subsidies aren't just some government misappropriation. They are getting economic value from it, and not just from kick starting
You are looking at a instant in time and without including externalities. Please review the historical subsidies (DOE EIA, other academic reviews). Look at cumulative subsides of time to be useful - solar is tiny on the scale of other subsidies.
But, of course reasonable to assume that newer technologies will have significantly higher investment per unit generation, where as old technologies will need little investment. What is the subsidy per MWh for fusion? Infinite! Does that mean that it shouldn't be studied?
But more importantly, the document doesn't talk about externalities. Just in the cost cost to the US in persian gulf military activity alone in the last 20 years to secure a vital energy resource... the cost has been enormous. The *current* Iraq effort alone has been estimated to cost $2 Trillion by 2010. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html). Again it is important to take ALL costs into account. When taken into account (military, healthcare, land, environmental, global warming, etc etc) The external costs of oil are Staggering.
But here is the math for a national Solar+wind system. The US uses 4.1x10^12 kWh/Year in electricity. The average solar location in the US has 2000 peak hours of sun per year (equiv to solar under 1000W/m^2). Large scale solar today can be purchaced at $2/Wp (firstsolar). The average wind install is $1.50/Wp @ 2800 peak hours/year.
If you calculate that out on a 50%/50% wind/solar split, you get $3.15 Trillion for replacing ALL of the electric capacity in the US. Cheap, compared to external costs of other energy sources. A fraction of our long term national cost to secure energy resources around the world, and oh yeah... nearly free electricity in perpetuity.
Of course, solar will have additional BOS costs, but it also reduces grid loads, and increases grid stability, security, and decentralization , thus reducing grid infrastructure upgrades (which are current desperately needed).
Yes you need baseload capacity, so geothermal, wave, tidal could be thrown into the mix - but for the most part these are more cost effective than solar.
The point is you are comparing the investment costs of an emerging technology, when you scale it up, even at current costs and without subsidy - it looks really good compared to our other activities.
Sorry but that report says no such thing. And your reasoning is wrong.
Renewables have gotten far fewer subsidies then nuclear and oil: look over the total expenditures by the DOE from 1950-Present. Nuclear subsidies add up to around $1 Trillion, WAY BEYOND RENEWABLES, and yet it has largely been a commercial failure. Meanwhile, solar has managed to surpass nuclear world-wide in new capacity installations in the free market, just as wind did a few years ago. There was more wind installed last year in the US, than the amount of new coal in the last 5 years.
If you only look at the cost to the US in maintaining a modicum of stability in the middle east in order to insure a free flow of oil, the cost has been enormous. Half a our military budget ($500 Billion/year) + $2 Trillion for Iraq. At current large volume pricing ($2/Wp e.g. firstsolar), The war in Iraq alone would pay for converting 50% of the US electric grid to PV, another 4 years of the defense budget, would pay for the rest - and that would be free electricity for everybody in perpetuity.
And we haven't even addressed the concomitant increased value of the grid by having distributed power. Or a mixed solar/wind/geothermal mix, that would be cheaper, more reliable, etc, etc.
Right now the average home has $30,000 of solar energy landing on its roof per year at current gas prices.
Renewables are the only long term affordable choice.
If you use a glossy screen, you will realize that it is superior in most cases.
With a matte screen, light from any vector to the user will create glare. WIth a Glossy screen, only light vector opposite to the user will create a reflection.
Glossy screens have much higher contrast and brightness, meaning you are much more likely to see them in poor lighting conditions, and at least you have the choice to orient your screen so you don't have reflections. With a matte screen, no matter what you do, you will have glare - eating into your already reduced contrast and brightness.
1. There is no argument that these devices all have multitasking kernels, and are fully capable of supporting background threads. But, just because a BlackBerry allows it, doesn't mean that the average user is having a good experience doing it. Of course its possible, but without management is it a good idea? Anytime you add untested combinations of applications to a computer, reliability goes down, and the more limited the device and the more application loaded on it, the more reliability goes down. The question is, what is acceptable levels of reliability? Judging from how the public perceives phones, the expectation of reliability is around 10-1000 times more reliable than a computer.
2. Blackberries are mostly used by business users with only a handful of applications, and with a IT support team. Right now there are only 650 registered Blackberry developers. Already 200,000 developers have downloaded the iPhone SDK, and it isn't even in full release. With the growth of the smart phone segment, and the iPhone in particular, into the cunsumer market, with 1000s of applications available - in a short while you'll have phones like computers, where the average consumer has dozens of downloaded applications.
3. Apple is really good at understanding what to leave out of a device. Unfortunately that means that it isn't all things to all people. But the result is a device that meets the needs of 80% of the people really well. However, that compromise tends to be frustrating to geeks, who want it to have all the features, and total flexibility. In this case, I think the majority of people won't notice that background tasks are missing, and that they'll have a device that is far more stable and responsive, and the resulting consumer experience will drive the iPhone market past all of their competitors.
Most of the Slashdot community here is totally out of touch with the reality of embedded devices. Yes the iPhone has all of the OS trappings of a modern fully function desktop - and that is tantalizing for a potential programmer who wants to make a cool app that runs in the background.
But Apple has the difficult task of making a user experience with all the capability of a desktop, but is near crash proof, always instantly responsive to any action having the bandwidth to do smooth 3D transitions, etc - all with only 128 MB of RAM & no room for page in flash, while maintaing battery life - so that it "just works" for the end user, and requires zero user support.
Embedded devices require their primary purpose to be uninterrupted by other activities- customers won't be pleased if their iPhone gives them the spinning beach ball of death when they try to make a phone call. The arguments on/. are the difference between the desires of a few hundred geeks and the needs of million of users. Would it be nice to have background processes? Yes. But how do you manage it? How do you manage allowing background apps, while making sure the whole device, with all of the application permutations, won't suck RAM & CPU and kill battery? How do you keep the unwitting user from loading 10 background apps on there computer that take half the RAM and half the CPU. Now the customer is coming into the apple store for support on their "broken" phone, and Apple is stuck helping 75% of users a couple hours for a lousy $400 device.
Now slashdot users will probably say some geek-libertarian nonsense like: "but like man I compile my own OS, and I build my own computer from scratch, heck last week I made my own CPU from open source plans on a FPGA - Apple's like satan cause, ya know, its my right to run background applications on my phone".
Dude get over it. Its a phone. A really nice phone. But the last thing I want is to fuck around with my phone trying to make a call. I won't want it to be like my desktop where I have to ctrl-alt-del to manage stray processes on a daily basis. You can build your own computers from scratch - the rest of us have real things to do with our time.
Concrete wants to be a dryer mix to set up stronger. We already add too much water to concrete just to get it liquid enough to pour. This is why super-plasticizers and water reducers work to make stronger concrete, the less water added to the mix substantially increases the strength - but you need a plasticizer to maintain a reasonable slump.
Standard mix concrete is around 3000 psi, but with water reducers you can get to 6000+.
Having said that, it is true you don't want it to dry out in hot dry weather, but it isn't the best to add more water, you'd be better off setting up fine misters to increase the humidity right above the concrete work, or covering it, etc.
Mercury is a natural mineral, it has a natural distribution in the soil.
In fact, Wikipedia states that the mercury distribution in the soil is 70ug/kg. Soil weights about 1500 kg/cubic meter. That means natural soil has ~0.10 kg of mercury per cubic meter - 21 light bulbs worth.
While I consider myself an environmentalist, we must recognize the absurdity here. Considering the lifespan of a CF bulb,the diffusivity of bulb disposal, I'd doubt you'd contribute sufficient mercury beyond natural levels is high unlikely.
That isn't even factoring the offset mercury from coal burning power plant as a result of using mercury. (which itself is from a natural distribution of mercury in decomposed plant and animal matter)
Actually you identified exactly what is wrong with nuclear. It *is* a very concentrated from of power. That is NOT a good thing (for safety or for distribution).
Users are widely distributed. Having monolithic centralized power plants requires a much more expensive grid, than having lots of small distributed power plants. Over the last 30 years power plants have become exponentially smaller due to this fact. Most of our power problems are currently transmission and distribution issues, not generating capacity. In the balance transmission and distribution costs more than generation - so it is a very important criteria.
Nuclear advocates don't include the cost of grid infrastructure in the cost of nuclear power, but it is a very real cost even if it is hidden from the end users view.
Compare that to a very decentralized and distributed technology like solar - it actually reduces transmission stress, instead of increasing it since it can tap into the wired grid or the wireless grid of the sun. Kinda like wi-fi for electricity, it acts as a gateway between the two networks - only difference is there is a existing, free, world-wide, nature provided, wireless network provided by your friend the sun.
It is true that a softball sized lump assumes weapons grade Pu 239 - I stated that to give perspective. Still Pu-240 is almost as fissionable, the critical mass would not be much different. The important issue is that it is on the scale of softballs, not whole truckloads of material.
Unfortunately safety engineering isn't a requirement at university. You end up with a bunch a cocky engineers walking around thinking they can overcome the laws of physics.
Here is the fundamental problem: there is no such thing as a fail-safe system. Sure, better designs can tack on a extra '9' to the statistics before failure - but it *will* fail - and the risk is far greater than other forms of energy. (And the nuclear industry has a string of failures in its history, up to and including critical failure - in case you think nuclear is immune to statistics).
Nuclear power presents trade-offs, none of them good. There is no magic pill with nuclear power, you can shift around some of the downsides, but it still ends up with a *whole lot* of down sides. Don't get me wrong, I think it is interesting science, but a good choice of power it isn't.
Integral Fast reactors don't change that fact. They switch some failure modes for others (high pressure water for tons of liquid sodium), which sound good until a real one is actually built. They output waste that is usable in nuclear weapons (don't be misled, IRF levels of Pu 240 doesn't make the best bombs or the most predictable yields, but it can still make a reasonable bomb good enough for terrorism). IRFs can be used to breed Pu 239 to very high grade if the user or rogue state chooses to as well. And "Proliferation resistant because the waste is so hot", is like calling a bug a feature.
Given the many problems and risks, and poor economy associated with nuclear power it would only be acceptable if there were no other alternatives. The thing is... there are alternatives! Renewables already are building more capacity annually then nuclear worldwide, they have similar economics or are more economical (despite vastly lower subsidies and research funding), have better energy-returns-on-energy-investment, better security, no major safety issues, are decentralizable, etc, etc, etc. Now why would I want to build nuclear power plants?
Breeders = more fuel. Breeders = nuclear proliferation too.
Why do you thin the designers of light water reactors didn't choose a breeder design? Why do you think that US presidents for 20 years have shut down the reprocessing? N-U-C-L-E-A-R P-R-O-L-I-F-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.
You think that a huge complex of private industry can abate the risk of a softball sized lump of Pu going missing? You think that the US taking on nuclear is on a large scale paveing the way for more nuclear power plants everywhere is a good idea? So General electric end up selling plants to every 3rd world country breeding away there own supplies? Totally insane.
Oh, wait.... I forgot nuclear isn't economical (amongst many other faults). Oh wait renewables are already cheaper? What was the question?
True it is theoretically an energy source, but doesn't mean its viable, economical, or prudent.
I can combust gold and fluorine to make energy too. Doesn't make it good idea or economical. Many things could in theory be an "energy source".
Nuclear energy is a fun science project, but despite lots of economic inputs for 50 years it just fails the test on so many fronts.
Not even close. Nuclear is around 6 cents/kWh for current facilities (ranging from 3 to 14 cents/kWh), and that is with completely depreciated capital costs and counting no external costs! Future plants? Please all theory, no reality. The mantra of nuclear is always been "too cheap to meter", yet it has fallen famously short of this for 50 years... why should we subsidize it further? What is the benefit? Causes its super geeky cool? Not enough.
US nuclear reactors average something around 98-99%
That would be nice. Nuclear plants have historically averaged only 80% up time - in fact in the 1980s is was 65%. Less availability than wind power: 95+% for a good wind farm (surprised? of course capacity factor is a different story). But your point about solar is indeed true, i left it out of my post for simplicity, it averages 30-40%. In fact 85% of the country has 1800-2000 kWh/m^2/year isolation for fixed panels. Around 80% of the best location in Arizona, so no desert needed.
As for the waste - build breeder and integral fast reactors. They're more expensive to build, but cheaper to run, as their fuel can be all the 'waste' fuel rods sitting around. Eliminate two birds with one stone.
You can't have everything with Nuclear, you either get less efficient use of fuel, OR nuclear proliferation problems. The designers of light water reactor weren't stupid, they designed them to be a nuclear proliferation resistant design. Now, when we are concerned with terrorism, building breeder or fast reactors is insane. Remember is only takes 5-25 kg of material (a softball size) to made a viable nuclear weapon. Its the nuclear materials that are hard, the rest is a glorified pipe bomb - literally garage science.
The main point is with comparatively less subsidy than nuclear, solar and other renewables are kicking nuclears butt in the marketplace already. Next year solar will surpass new nuclear capacity, wind already did it 3 years ago. even with all of the hidden economic subsidies for nuclear. If you add those externalities back in, Nuclear doesn't make any sense. Yes it is cool technology. And it makes sense in a few situations (nuclear subs for example). But that doesn't win one any point: Pollution, scale, distribution, safety (the murphy factor), security, EROI, construction time, cost, etc.
The one flag that nuclear advocates wave is CO2. That is the only benefit, That alone is not enough. Trading 1 waste for another is not a big win - when there are renewable resources that do better, faster, cheaper.
I not suggesting abandoning it. Just understanding the costs involved. The size of power plants has exponentially declined over the last 30 years. The reason? You need to get smaller plants as close to the point of use, cause transmission costs are high. The more distributed the resource the less stress there is on the grid, the cheaper the transmission
Solar is the ultimate distributed energy source. It is important to realize that solar has a built in free wireless grid. It is mass producible, ad-hoc installable, and wireless. It can attached to the wired-grid, or not, have distributed storage, or not.
Slashdot readers should get this.
Solar = distributed grid of mass produced PCs
Nuclear = Centralized mainframe Which one will win? Well I think that is obvious.
my vision of the future includes *more* electrical demands.
I think you need to learn a little about history and energy efficiency. First, we are not even close to using our electrical resources efficiently. And every study done is the last 20 years show that addressing efficiency is the CHEAPEST thing we can do. Cheaper than coal, wind, nuclear, etc. We halve our electrical consumption for $0.02-0.05/kWh. It makes far more senses than building new capacity - which is why utilities often give away compact fluorescents for free.
I'll just pick one of those externalities to show what is wrong to nuclear.
Where there is no grid infrastructure solar is the cheapest thing going. In developing countries, the cost of adding a grid can cost 10x the cost of the power plants... making solar the cheapest option. We happen to have 75 years of subsidized grid infrastructure in the US. However it is getting old, and every power plant requires a grid upgrade. The grid is the source of most of our power problems in the last decade - not production. More than half the price of electricity in the US is transmission and distribution cost.
One of the missing links in nuclear advocacy, is transmission and distribution. Nuclear power in very centralized by is nature, and requires large grid externalities that aren't counted in its costs. Solar is the exact opposite, as solar is ultimate distributed energy source - it can literally be installed within feet of its primary use.
If today just focused on Distributed solar, we could *downgrade* the grid, instead of *upgrade* it... very big difference in real cost externalities.
1. Sure it's a different issue. Solar cells aren't physically logical if they have a negative energy return. Still, it's the same situation as with electric cars right now. They're feasable physically, but cost so much that they're substantially behind other alternatives; making them economically unfeasable in most situations.
Solar is currently economically feasible in many markets, even with inefficient labor/installation. With electricity at 18+ cents/kWh in the northeast and California, solar looks very good. Now add to that large-scale installation by "virtual" utilities (instead of an installer who does 8 installs a year, a utility scale company doing thousands a year). Labor cost impact would bring system costs very close to equipment costs (10-15% extra for labor, instead of 40%).
I'd recommend waiting the said five years for costs to go down and efficiency to go up.
Efficiency is not an issue. Nobody is waiting for it to go up. Current efficiencies are 15-20% for Si, 30-40% for multi layer, and 8-10% for thin films. If 10% efficiency thin films can be produced dirt cheap, it will win the marketplace. Efficiency is generally only important if it give an economic advantage.
What about land use? Not an issue. A typical roof on an 2000 sqft house will produce 6 times the amount of energy used by an average American family with 15% efficient cells.
Sure, for the same $2 trillion we could build a billion kilowatts of nuclear capacity,
Yes the nuclear question. I didn't check your numbers, but here is a comparison. On a small "large" project I had (30 kW), I negotiated $3.50/watt for PV. For $2 Trillion, we can get 570 million kilowatts of PV. Not quite the same amount but close - but it has no fuel, maintenance, security costs, subsidized loans externalities, insurance backdoor externalities, centralized grid cost externalities, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, etc, etc, etc. Still for $ 2 trillion I'd hope we could negotiate better rates!
In fact there is very little going for nuclear, it is very expensive - very close in price to PV. And that doesn't even count all the externalities. We have already spent $1 trillion on it in research & subsidies in the last 40 years... and still it has been a boondoggle, now in deregulated states customers are getting charged another extra "tax" to decommission old plants that are just not economical (as if there weren't enough externalities).
The promise of Nuclear as a source of endless cheap energy was a 1950s dream, it hasn't even come close to the dream. It take a *LOT* on energy to process the nuclear fuel. Notice that Nuclear has one of the lowest EROIs.
1. My previous post was about Energy return on Investment. In other words, how much energy must be invested to extract another amount of energy. Not economics. Different issue.
2. The economics of solar however, are based on many issues. One such issue is it is being done on an inefficient small scale, by small time installers. Your Solar system would use around $45,000 in PV panels. Toss in another $7,500 for inverters, racks, etc. So you end up with around $30,000 in labor and profit - rather steep (find another installer). However, PV is currently competitive with some electric rates. On a equipment basis PV can produce power at around 8 cents/kilowatt hour at current prices - the rest is up to labor rates.
3. The solar market is a supply limited market, which is pushing prices up. Right now world-wide demand is outstripping supply by ~30%. It is seriously keeping prices inflated. Blame capitalism. Right now PV manufactures can charge whatever they want. But as the supply catches up, you see things change in the next 5 years.
4. Technology and manufacturing advances are bringing down costs as we speak - the question is when that will reflect in prices.
5. It is also a question of economic externailities. The US invests HUGE resources in securing the middle-east region because it has a critical resource: oil. Some estimates of the Iraq war alone, bring the US cost to $2 trillion. For the same amount we could have replaced 33% of our electric production with solar - proving free electricity in peripituitary.
Those examples are absurd. First we already have a fusion energy source that beams energy from space that can be captured by receivers anywhere on earth - it is called the *sun*. And the receivers? You guess it - solar panels.
The sun just happens to put out wireless directed energy over the whole surface of the earth, energy dense enough to be very useful, yet not too dense as to be dangerous.
No mega clusters of PV are needed. There is 262 billion square ft of rooftop space in the US (according to census data), 246% more surface area than we need to produce all of the US electrical demand with 17% efficiency Panels. That doesn't even count parking lot surface area, or other multipurpose structures.
Light that would turn to heat on your roof, ends up displaced as heat 20 feet away in your refrigerator. No environmental concern here folks, move along.
Even produced at a distance, the net heat balance on the earth is the same. Not so much could be said for fossils or nuclear.
Slashdot Mirror
Reactors are the only other major use of these materials. If we shut down the world-wide nuclear power industry - and supplant it with renewables (for instance), it becomes very easy to manage the flow of nuclear materials, there world becomes a much safer place.
Uranium isn't the only weaponizable material. Many of the fuels or waste materials of breeders, pebble beds, etc can be used to form a critical mass.
In the past the concern was other nation-states having nuclear weapons. Shared mutual destruction was sufficient to insure safety. We are coming to a point, that the technology is so easy given sufficient nuclear material generation, and lots of plants world-wide, that individuals and groups could have their own nuclear weapons. Well guess what, they don't care about their own destruction. Of all the things too be worried about in the post 9/11 era, nuclear is the one that should be concerning (not the nonsense the bush administration has hyped).
No. Understand what might happen is called statistics, and it is a fundamental requirement for any engineering project. Too bad few engineers did well in their stats classes. There is no such thing as 100% safe, and the repercussions with nuclear are very serious.
The notion of no problems with western nuclear plants is just misinformed. Many very serious accidents have happened, and we've just missed a huge accident numerous times. Please browse the incident databases.
Nuclear power is expensive even when *not* considering all externalities, that is why many utilities have decommissioned plants over the last 20 years, they were too expensive to run. All cheap energy numbers you see for nuclear is pie-in-the-sky academic hopeful thinking - certainly not including the 1 trillion dollars in federal investments, subsidies, loan guarantees, insurance opt-outs, and research that have been dumped into nuclear over the last 40 years.
Ahh. You unwittingly pointed to one of the biggest *weaknesses* of nuclear - centralization! Distribution of power is larger and more expensive problem than generation. If fact want you want is lots of small mass produceable power generators distributed around the grid - just like wind and solar. Let me rephrase your statement: How many of those home PCs will you need to replace this central mainframe? (get it?)
None. You can't remove significant enough amounts of energy from the wind or sun to even compete with the impact of buildings in cities and towns
More than windmills. All bird studies have shown that buildings (which would include nuclear plants), kill far more birds than windmills. Why? Windmills move alerting birds to their presence. No they are not bird blenders, If you've seen a modern windmill they move sloooow.
The point is wind is cheaper than nuclear, some kinds of solar are on par with nuclear. They are distributed generation technologies, no waste, no proliferation, no major saftey and security concerns... why should we dump a lot of cash in nuclear?
Nuclear weapons are essentially 1940s garage science. A gun type nulcear weapon, like "Fat Boy" used in WWII are nothing more than a large pipe bomb: two halves of a critical mass placed at either end of a pipe, with an explosive to propel one into the other.
It is the most efficient? No. Does it work? Yes. Even when using Pu isotopes, gun weapons will work. Yes they pre-ignite. But that isn't a bad thing, it means the weapon will explode guaranteed. So what if it's only 1kton explosion instead of a 100kton - the effect will be the same from a terrorists view.
So what is the hard part? Getting the fissile materials. For that you need nothing other than one of a number of nuclear reactor designs. For this reason alone, the US should lead the world in not using Nuclear technologies. 9/11 was nothing compared to even a sucky nuclear weapon.
A fundamental problem with nuclear reactors is by the law of physics you either get lots of nuclear waste, or weaponizable waste. Why even go there when renewables are either already competitive with nuclear, or close (and solve all sorts of other problems with nuclear besides waste)?
My Geo Metro has a 51Hp engine, gets 50 MPG, and cruses at 75 MPG on the highway. I live at 9000 ft elevation and commute down a mountain to 4500 at steep grades. It goes as fast as you'd want to on mountain roads with 3-4 passengers. Yes its no drag racer, but it goes from pt. A to B efficiently and reliably. Besides it cost me 1/10th of a hybrid and gets the same milage. We love it.
Now imagine making it lighter and hybrid. No Doubt 20 Hp is sufficient.
As it turns out military is a whole lot more expensive, and every time we have a republican in the white house we are driven into a giant red hole.
It would be nice to have a serious candidate in the US that could be honestly called a liberal.
1. Why should we power ourselves with outrageously expensive sources? I'm not arguing against subsidies for research and development purposes; but to convert over to solar or wind at this stage of the game would bankrupt this nation in a year. How about waiting to convert until we actually have a technological approach that makes economic sense?
Yes solar is more expensive than coal/oil/etc. But it is not more expensive when you add in the external costs.
It is clear that our current strategy fossil strategy is bankrupting us. How many wars can we endure to secure critical off-shore energy resources, and at what cost? The balance of our economy and security rests with unfriendly nations and despots. The CIA report on Energy a few years back spelled out the future with the rise in Oil Demand from China, India and others: the future of international conflict will revolve around energy resources. And that should be no surprise to even the most casual observer: the history of the last 15 years of conflict has been about energy resources.
And of course there are other external issues that cost from environmental destruction, to air pollution induced health problems, to global warming.
These are all real costs. I'm all for removing subsidies. People should be responsible for their own usage. But it has to be applied across categories. Unfortunately Americans don't have the stomach for $9/gallon gas and 30 cent/kwh electric that comprise all of the external costs.
Wind even without the external costs right now is competitive with coal on a global basis. In texas right now you can sign 10 year wind contracts that beat *todays* coal electric prices. It is true that we already have an infrastructure, and unlike my simple example, we won't convert all in 1, 2 or even 10 years... But it is the only sensible out when considering all the issues.
The point I want to get across is the technology is now. With $30,000 of energy/year falling on everyones roof at current oil prices, and the average roof capable of 6 times the production of the average house electric demand (with current tech) - There is no revolution that needs to happen. Only market volume increases, only then will prices come down
2. Your energy conversion rate doesn't assume the typical losses of wind and solar conversion, as well as power (voltage) conversion. Drop the energy you get by a factor of 10. So it's a little over $30 trillion, about twice our GDP.
Nope, conversion efficiency included in $3 Trillion total.
a) $2 buys a watt of peak power capacity.
b) That watt of capacity will produce 2000 watts/year in an average US location
c) It would take 2 Trillion peak watts to product 4 Trillion kWh/year
d) That would cost $4 trillion (if solar alone), $3 Trillion in a 50% wind mix - equivalent to 1.5-2 Iraq wars
e) The install area to produce all of the US electric need would be 1/3rd of the US roof top space (according to the US census data) with current technology
f) That cost assumes free electricity production for all. Which is silly, the actual investment is much lower if you consider keeping the electric rates the same. (and to pay the remaining BOS)
I think the sane thing to do is to keep researching, start moving now to lower cost/subsidized solutions (nuclear and hydro), and when solar or wind becomes commercially viable, begin larger deployments. Because right now, the wind and solar suppliers would be out of business in a matter of weeks if it wasn't for the huge subsidies they receive.
Before california subsidies the PV market was growing at 25% a year for 20 years on average - essentially all free market driven (tiny federal incentives). After the California incentives its growing by 50%. So yes, subsides have an impact, but pre-subsidy, 25% is quite good.
But, understand that subsidies aren't just some government misappropriation. They are getting economic value from it, and not just from kick starting
You are looking at a instant in time and without including externalities. Please review the historical subsidies (DOE EIA, other academic reviews). Look at cumulative subsides of time to be useful - solar is tiny on the scale of other subsidies.
But, of course reasonable to assume that newer technologies will have significantly higher investment per unit generation, where as old technologies will need little investment. What is the subsidy per MWh for fusion? Infinite! Does that mean that it shouldn't be studied?
But more importantly, the document doesn't talk about externalities. Just in the cost cost to the US in persian gulf military activity alone in the last 20 years to secure a vital energy resource... the cost has been enormous. The *current* Iraq effort alone has been estimated to cost $2 Trillion by 2010. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html). Again it is important to take ALL costs into account. When taken into account (military, healthcare, land, environmental, global warming, etc etc) The external costs of oil are Staggering.
But here is the math for a national Solar+wind system.
The US uses 4.1x10^12 kWh/Year in electricity.
The average solar location in the US has 2000 peak hours of sun per year (equiv to solar under 1000W/m^2). Large scale solar today can be purchaced at $2/Wp (firstsolar).
The average wind install is $1.50/Wp @ 2800 peak hours/year.
If you calculate that out on a 50%/50% wind/solar split, you get $3.15 Trillion for replacing ALL of the electric capacity in the US. Cheap, compared to external costs of other energy sources. A fraction of our long term national cost to secure energy resources around the world, and oh yeah... nearly free electricity in perpetuity.
Of course, solar will have additional BOS costs, but it also reduces grid loads, and increases grid stability, security, and decentralization , thus reducing grid infrastructure upgrades (which are current desperately needed).
Yes you need baseload capacity, so geothermal, wave, tidal could be thrown into the mix - but for the most part these are more cost effective than solar.
The point is you are comparing the investment costs of an emerging technology, when you scale it up, even at current costs and without subsidy - it looks really good compared to our other activities.
Sorry but that report says no such thing. And your reasoning is wrong.
Renewables have gotten far fewer subsidies then nuclear and oil: look over the total expenditures by the DOE from 1950-Present. Nuclear subsidies add up to around $1 Trillion, WAY BEYOND RENEWABLES, and yet it has largely been a commercial failure. Meanwhile, solar has managed to surpass nuclear world-wide in new capacity installations in the free market, just as wind did a few years ago. There was more wind installed last year in the US, than the amount of new coal in the last 5 years.
If you only look at the cost to the US in maintaining a modicum of stability in the middle east in order to insure a free flow of oil, the cost has been enormous. Half a our military budget ($500 Billion/year) + $2 Trillion for Iraq. At current large volume pricing ($2/Wp e.g. firstsolar), The war in Iraq alone would pay for converting 50% of the US electric grid to PV, another 4 years of the defense budget, would pay for the rest - and that would be free electricity for everybody in perpetuity.
And we haven't even addressed the concomitant increased value of the grid by having distributed power. Or a mixed solar/wind/geothermal mix, that would be cheaper, more reliable, etc, etc.
Right now the average home has $30,000 of solar energy landing on its roof per year at current gas prices.
Renewables are the only long term affordable choice.
If you use a glossy screen, you will realize that it is superior in most cases.
With a matte screen, light from any vector to the user will create glare. WIth a Glossy screen, only light vector opposite to the user will create a reflection.
Glossy screens have much higher contrast and brightness, meaning you are much more likely to see them in poor lighting conditions, and at least you have the choice to orient your screen so you don't have reflections. With a matte screen, no matter what you do, you will have glare - eating into your already reduced contrast and brightness.
1. There is no argument that these devices all have multitasking kernels, and are fully capable of supporting background threads. But, just because a BlackBerry allows it, doesn't mean that the average user is having a good experience doing it. Of course its possible, but without management is it a good idea? Anytime you add untested combinations of applications to a computer, reliability goes down, and the more limited the device and the more application loaded on it, the more reliability goes down. The question is, what is acceptable levels of reliability? Judging from how the public perceives phones, the expectation of reliability is around 10-1000 times more reliable than a computer.
2. Blackberries are mostly used by business users with only a handful of applications, and with a IT support team. Right now there are only 650 registered Blackberry developers. Already 200,000 developers have downloaded the iPhone SDK, and it isn't even in full release. With the growth of the smart phone segment, and the iPhone in particular, into the cunsumer market, with 1000s of applications available - in a short while you'll have phones like computers, where the average consumer has dozens of downloaded applications.
3. Apple is really good at understanding what to leave out of a device. Unfortunately that means that it isn't all things to all people. But the result is a device that meets the needs of 80% of the people really well. However, that compromise tends to be frustrating to geeks, who want it to have all the features, and total flexibility. In this case, I think the majority of people won't notice that background tasks are missing, and that they'll have a device that is far more stable and responsive, and the resulting consumer experience will drive the iPhone market past all of their competitors.
Most of the Slashdot community here is totally out of touch with the reality of embedded devices. Yes the iPhone has all of the OS trappings of a modern fully function desktop - and that is tantalizing for a potential programmer who wants to make a cool app that runs in the background.
But Apple has the difficult task of making a user experience with all the capability of a desktop, but is near crash proof, always instantly responsive to any action having the bandwidth to do smooth 3D transitions, etc - all with only 128 MB of RAM & no room for page in flash, while maintaing battery life - so that it "just works" for the end user, and requires zero user support.
Embedded devices require their primary purpose to be uninterrupted by other activities- customers won't be pleased if their iPhone gives them the spinning beach ball of death when they try to make a phone call. The arguments on /. are the difference between the desires of a few hundred geeks and the needs of million of users. Would it be nice to have background processes? Yes. But how do you manage it? How do you manage allowing background apps, while making sure the whole device, with all of the application permutations, won't suck RAM & CPU and kill battery? How do you keep the unwitting user from loading 10 background apps on there computer that take half the RAM and half the CPU. Now the customer is coming into the apple store for support on their "broken" phone, and Apple is stuck helping 75% of users a couple hours for a lousy $400 device.
Now slashdot users will probably say some geek-libertarian nonsense like: "but like man I compile my own OS, and I build my own computer from scratch, heck last week I made my own CPU from open source plans on a FPGA - Apple's like satan cause, ya know, its my right to run background applications on my phone".
Dude get over it. Its a phone. A really nice phone. But the last thing I want is to fuck around with my phone trying to make a call. I won't want it to be like my desktop where I have to ctrl-alt-del to manage stray processes on a daily basis. You can build your own computers from scratch - the rest of us have real things to do with our time.
This is fundamentally wrong.
Concrete wants to be a dryer mix to set up stronger. We already add too much water to concrete just to get it liquid enough to pour. This is why super-plasticizers and water reducers work to make stronger concrete, the less water added to the mix substantially increases the strength - but you need a plasticizer to maintain a reasonable slump.
Standard mix concrete is around 3000 psi, but with water reducers you can get to 6000+.
Having said that, it is true you don't want it to dry out in hot dry weather, but it isn't the best to add more water, you'd be better off setting up fine misters to increase the humidity right above the concrete work, or covering it, etc.
Mercury is a natural mineral, it has a natural distribution in the soil.
In fact, Wikipedia states that the mercury distribution in the soil is 70ug/kg. Soil weights about 1500 kg/cubic meter.
That means natural soil has ~0.10 kg of mercury per cubic meter - 21 light bulbs worth.
While I consider myself an environmentalist, we must recognize the absurdity here. Considering the lifespan of a CF bulb,the diffusivity of bulb disposal, I'd doubt you'd contribute sufficient mercury beyond natural levels is high unlikely.
That isn't even factoring the offset mercury from coal burning power plant as a result of using mercury. (which itself is from a natural distribution of mercury in decomposed plant and animal matter)
Actually you identified exactly what is wrong with nuclear. It *is* a very concentrated from of power. That is NOT a good thing (for safety or for distribution).
Users are widely distributed. Having monolithic centralized power plants requires a much more expensive grid, than having lots of small distributed power plants. Over the last 30 years power plants have become exponentially smaller due to this fact. Most of our power problems are currently transmission and distribution issues, not generating capacity. In the balance transmission and distribution costs more than generation - so it is a very important criteria.
Nuclear advocates don't include the cost of grid infrastructure in the cost of nuclear power, but it is a very real cost even if it is hidden from the end users view.
Compare that to a very decentralized and distributed technology like solar - it actually reduces transmission stress, instead of increasing it since it can tap into the wired grid or the wireless grid of the sun. Kinda like wi-fi for electricity, it acts as a gateway between the two networks - only difference is there is a existing, free, world-wide, nature provided, wireless network provided by your friend the sun.
It is true that a softball sized lump assumes weapons grade Pu 239 - I stated that to give perspective. Still Pu-240 is almost as fissionable, the critical mass would not be much different. The important issue is that it is on the scale of softballs, not whole truckloads of material.
The idea that high Pu-240 material can not be used for bomb making is a total myth. All Pu isotopes can be used for bomb making. Pu-240 is as fissionable as U-235. Pu-240 is less desirable, because it has the tendency to predetonate, so a large military countries try to avoid it. But a terrorist cares not if its makes the 'best' bomb. They just care it works. In fact, reactor-grade plutonium may be even more desirable than weapon-grade plutonium as a bomb material for terrorist or other sub-national groups. The increased probability of pre-detonation would eliminate the need to include a neutron initiator in the weapon, considerably simplifying the task of designing and producing such a weapon.
Unfortunately safety engineering isn't a requirement at university. You end up with a bunch a cocky engineers walking around thinking they can overcome the laws of physics.
Here is the fundamental problem: there is no such thing as a fail-safe system. Sure, better designs can tack on a extra '9' to the statistics before failure - but it *will* fail - and the risk is far greater than other forms of energy. (And the nuclear industry has a string of failures in its history, up to and including critical failure - in case you think nuclear is immune to statistics).
Nuclear power presents trade-offs, none of them good. There is no magic pill with nuclear power, you can shift around some of the downsides, but it still ends up with a *whole lot* of down sides. Don't get me wrong, I think it is interesting science, but a good choice of power it isn't.
Integral Fast reactors don't change that fact. They switch some failure modes for others (high pressure water for tons of liquid sodium), which sound good until a real one is actually built. They output waste that is usable in nuclear weapons (don't be misled, IRF levels of Pu 240 doesn't make the best bombs or the most predictable yields, but it can still make a reasonable bomb good enough for terrorism). IRFs can be used to breed Pu 239 to very high grade if the user or rogue state chooses to as well. And "Proliferation resistant because the waste is so hot", is like calling a bug a feature.
Given the many problems and risks, and poor economy associated with nuclear power it would only be acceptable if there were no other alternatives. The thing is... there are alternatives! Renewables already are building more capacity annually then nuclear worldwide, they have similar economics or are more economical (despite vastly lower subsidies and research funding), have better energy-returns-on-energy-investment, better security, no major safety issues, are decentralizable, etc, etc, etc. Now why would I want to build nuclear power plants?
Breeders = more fuel. Breeders = nuclear proliferation too.
Why do you thin the designers of light water reactors didn't choose a breeder design? Why do you think that US presidents for 20 years have shut down the reprocessing? N-U-C-L-E-A-R P-R-O-L-I-F-E-R-A-T-I-O-N.
You think that a huge complex of private industry can abate the risk of a softball sized lump of Pu going missing? You think that the US taking on nuclear is on a large scale paveing the way for more nuclear power plants everywhere is a good idea? So General electric end up selling plants to every 3rd world country breeding away there own supplies? Totally insane.
Oh, wait.... I forgot nuclear isn't economical (amongst many other faults). Oh wait renewables are already cheaper? What was the question?
True it is theoretically an energy source, but doesn't mean its viable, economical, or prudent. I can combust gold and fluorine to make energy too. Doesn't make it good idea or economical. Many things could in theory be an "energy source". Nuclear energy is a fun science project, but despite lots of economic inputs for 50 years it just fails the test on so many fronts.
Not even close. Nuclear is around 6 cents/kWh for current facilities (ranging from 3 to 14 cents/kWh), and that is with completely depreciated capital costs and counting no external costs! Future plants? Please all theory, no reality. The mantra of nuclear is always been "too cheap to meter", yet it has fallen famously short of this for 50 years... why should we subsidize it further? What is the benefit? Causes its super geeky cool? Not enough.
That would be nice. Nuclear plants have historically averaged only 80% up time - in fact in the 1980s is was 65%. Less availability than wind power: 95+% for a good wind farm (surprised? of course capacity factor is a different story). But your point about solar is indeed true, i left it out of my post for simplicity, it averages 30-40%. In fact 85% of the country has 1800-2000 kWh/m^2/year isolation for fixed panels. Around 80% of the best location in Arizona, so no desert needed.
You can't have everything with Nuclear, you either get less efficient use of fuel, OR nuclear proliferation problems. The designers of light water reactor weren't stupid, they designed them to be a nuclear proliferation resistant design. Now, when we are concerned with terrorism, building breeder or fast reactors is insane. Remember is only takes 5-25 kg of material (a softball size) to made a viable nuclear weapon. Its the nuclear materials that are hard, the rest is a glorified pipe bomb - literally garage science.
The main point is with comparatively less subsidy than nuclear, solar and other renewables are kicking nuclears butt in the marketplace already. Next year solar will surpass new nuclear capacity, wind already did it 3 years ago. even with all of the hidden economic subsidies for nuclear. If you add those externalities back in, Nuclear doesn't make any sense. Yes it is cool technology. And it makes sense in a few situations (nuclear subs for example). But that doesn't win one any point: Pollution, scale, distribution, safety (the murphy factor), security, EROI, construction time, cost, etc.
The one flag that nuclear advocates wave is CO2. That is the only benefit, That alone is not enough. Trading 1 waste for another is not a big win - when there are renewable resources that do better, faster, cheaper.
Solar is the ultimate distributed energy source. It is important to realize that solar has a built in free wireless grid. It is mass producible, ad-hoc installable, and wireless. It can attached to the wired-grid, or not, have distributed storage, or not.
Slashdot readers should get this.
Solar = distributed grid of mass produced PCs
Nuclear = Centralized mainframe
Which one will win? Well I think that is obvious.
I think you need to learn a little about history and energy efficiency. First, we are not even close to using our electrical resources efficiently. And every study done is the last 20 years show that addressing efficiency is the CHEAPEST thing we can do. Cheaper than coal, wind, nuclear, etc. We halve our electrical consumption for $0.02-0.05/kWh. It makes far more senses than building new capacity - which is why utilities often give away compact fluorescents for free.
I'll just pick one of those externalities to show what is wrong to nuclear.
Where there is no grid infrastructure solar is the cheapest thing going. In developing countries, the cost of adding a grid can cost 10x the cost of the power plants... making solar the cheapest option. We happen to have 75 years of subsidized grid infrastructure in the US. However it is getting old, and every power plant requires a grid upgrade. The grid is the source of most of our power problems in the last decade - not production. More than half the price of electricity in the US is transmission and distribution cost.
One of the missing links in nuclear advocacy, is transmission and distribution. Nuclear power in very centralized by is nature, and requires large grid externalities that aren't counted in its costs. Solar is the exact opposite, as solar is ultimate distributed energy source - it can literally be installed within feet of its primary use.
If today just focused on Distributed solar, we could *downgrade* the grid, instead of *upgrade* it... very big difference in real cost externalities.
Solar is currently economically feasible in many markets, even with inefficient labor/installation. With electricity at 18+ cents/kWh in the northeast and California, solar looks very good. Now add to that large-scale installation by "virtual" utilities (instead of an installer who does 8 installs a year, a utility scale company doing thousands a year). Labor cost impact would bring system costs very close to equipment costs (10-15% extra for labor, instead of 40%).
Efficiency is not an issue. Nobody is waiting for it to go up. Current efficiencies are 15-20% for Si, 30-40% for multi layer, and 8-10% for thin films. If 10% efficiency thin films can be produced dirt cheap, it will win the marketplace. Efficiency is generally only important if it give an economic advantage.
What about land use? Not an issue. A typical roof on an 2000 sqft house will produce 6 times the amount of energy used by an average American family with 15% efficient cells.
Yes the nuclear question. I didn't check your numbers, but here is a comparison. On a small "large" project I had (30 kW), I negotiated $3.50/watt for PV. For $2 Trillion, we can get 570 million kilowatts of PV. Not quite the same amount but close - but it has no fuel, maintenance, security costs, subsidized loans externalities, insurance backdoor externalities, centralized grid cost externalities, nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation, etc, etc, etc. Still for $ 2 trillion I'd hope we could negotiate better rates!
In fact there is very little going for nuclear, it is very expensive - very close in price to PV. And that doesn't even count all the externalities. We have already spent $1 trillion on it in research & subsidies in the last 40 years... and still it has been a boondoggle, now in deregulated states customers are getting charged another extra "tax" to decommission old plants that are just not economical (as if there weren't enough externalities).
The promise of Nuclear as a source of endless cheap energy was a 1950s dream, it hasn't even come close to the dream. It take a *LOT* on energy to process the nuclear fuel. Notice that Nuclear has one of the lowest EROIs.
Three points:
1. My previous post was about Energy return on Investment. In other words, how much energy must be invested to extract another amount of energy. Not economics. Different issue.
2. The economics of solar however, are based on many issues. One such issue is it is being done on an inefficient small scale, by small time installers. Your Solar system would use around $45,000 in PV panels. Toss in another $7,500 for inverters, racks, etc. So you end up with around $30,000 in labor and profit - rather steep (find another installer). However, PV is currently competitive with some electric rates. On a equipment basis PV can produce power at around 8 cents/kilowatt hour at current prices - the rest is up to labor rates.
3. The solar market is a supply limited market, which is pushing prices up. Right now world-wide demand is outstripping supply by ~30%. It is seriously keeping prices inflated. Blame capitalism. Right now PV manufactures can charge whatever they want. But as the supply catches up, you see things change in the next 5 years.
4. Technology and manufacturing advances are bringing down costs as we speak - the question is when that will reflect in prices.
5. It is also a question of economic externailities. The US invests HUGE resources in securing the middle-east region because it has a critical resource: oil. Some estimates of the Iraq war alone, bring the US cost to $2 trillion. For the same amount we could have replaced 33% of our electric production with solar - proving free electricity in peripituitary.
Those examples are absurd. First we already have a fusion energy source that beams energy from space that can be captured by receivers anywhere on earth - it is called the *sun*. And the receivers? You guess it - solar panels.
The sun just happens to put out wireless directed energy over the whole surface of the earth, energy dense enough to be very useful, yet not too dense as to be dangerous.
No mega clusters of PV are needed. There is 262 billion square ft of rooftop space in the US (according to census data), 246% more surface area than we need to produce all of the US electrical demand with 17% efficiency Panels. That doesn't even count parking lot surface area, or other multipurpose structures.
Light that would turn to heat on your roof, ends up displaced as heat 20 feet away in your refrigerator. No environmental concern here folks, move along.
Even produced at a distance, the net heat balance on the earth is the same. Not so much could be said for fossils or nuclear.