Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#67 I have high hopes for nano-solar technology. I truly think it may save our skins.
#68 I have hopes for many things. Hope doesn’t power a large industrialized economy though…
#69 Well I have hope simply because it’s too much work to be pessimistic. I also invest, so I’m playing it both ways.
Or, just go to Ikea for you solar needs. Of course it will all be metric. đ
#67 – Paddy,
Do you actually think that the bureaucracy involved in solar power is worse than the NRC??!!?
This table is a bit outdated and shows solar as a tad more expensive than nuclear, but not much.
http://tinyurl.com/5ujbhk
This article, which is also a bit dated at 2006, already shows solar as less expensive than nuclear.
http://www.doe.gov/news/4503.htm
And, remember, most numbers for nuclear power will not include the cost of health care for the uranium miners, the cost of waste disposal (still unknown since no one has ever disposed of nuclear waste), or the cost of decommissioning the plant at its end of life.
These are very expensive to ignore.
#71 – Interesting but it doesn’t show data about solar base power generation… Try again.
#72 – Paddy-O,
A mix of sources and storage techniques will give us base power.
This is not going to happen overnight, so to speak. We are speaking about an energy strategy. At present, solar is great because it provides its peak power right when we need it most, when everyone is cranking up their A/C.
Those peak kilowatt hours are also the most expensive, as they often involve powering up plants that were offline, a very inefficient and expensive thing. So, for now, the cost of solar should not be compared to base load costs. It should be compared to peak load costs. At such times, solar is already very cost effective.
#73 “A mix of sources and storage techniques will give us base power.”
But, not at the cost or efficiency you linked to.
Therefore, what I wrote stands. Solar can’t compete cost wise with nuc.
EOT
Paddy-O,
Way to keep the big picture and transitions in mind. Keep up the good work. Let me know how long you think it will take to get a new nuclear plant up and running (hint, think 10 years or more) then try to figure out how much solar could have been built and at what price by then versus the cost of the nuclear plant that will first begin returning a small amount of power during testing. Then take the ever declining costs of solar as technology improves into account.
I think you’re horribly deluded.
Scott, I wasn’t comparing the costs of nuclear and solar/wind/etc, but rather that all of those are more expensive than coal/oil/natural gas, etc., so one shouldn’t push one over the other based on cost.
#75 “I think youâre horribly deluded.”
Go get an engineering degree then give me a call.
You didn’t even know you had to take into account base power generation, double power conversion efficiency loss, etc. Deluded? Look in the mirror. LOL
Jim, Pres Rafsanjani reveals the true intentions. Here is the quote I was talking about.
The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.
He has also said that the world should fear if Iran takes its nuclear program underground. What is there to fear from an underground civilian nuclear program?
Actually Paddy-O,
Why the hangup on base load anyway? We’ve got more than enough for base load with conventional power already. If we start adding wind and solar into the mix we can take some of the base-load generators offline.
We can also, as I pointed out above, use solar to heat water and store it in large tanks, which is very efficient as anyone who has ever used a thermos knows. Then we can pipe that hot water into conventional plants, thus getting today’s power, base load power, from conventional sources for a fraction of the fuel, whatever that fuel may be. The conventional power will only have to heat the water the last few degrees to boiling to make the steam.
That, by the way, would reduce our fuel use tremendously with very cheap and proven solar technology today.
But back to base load. Generally, when it’s sunny, it’s not so windy, and vice versa, on any given day. So a mix of wind and solar would greatly reduce the variability of either technology on its own.
And again, solar is great because it really does provide the peak power output exactly when it is both needed and most expensive from any other source. Starting up a coal or gas power plant is not efficient at all. But, right when we’d need to, there’s solar producing peak power output. It’s a beautiful thing.
Remember, there is a transitional time. You can’t expect to replace all of the power plants in the country overnight. And, certainly not with nuclear. You can’t even replace one with nuclear in under 10 years.
Scott, if solar is so viable, then why are all these countries known for scorching desert heat, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq in the 80s trying for nuclear power? Why aren’t they going for more solar power plants?
Well there’s going to be plenty more oil supplies soon from offshore drilling. The small percent of that used for power generation will help more than solar and wind I think.
How is oil used for power generation?
Man, are you guys still at this? Check out Germany for solar power policy.
Yes, but what happens when someday we don’t have any more oil?
Civilian nuclear power plants subject to international inspection are a wee bit different from weapons grade uranium production facilities that are specifically closed from view and operated by the Iranian military.
And I don’t recall the Shah threatening to destroy any other countries (like Israel) or ship weapons to kill US soldiers (like in Iraq) either. And he didn’t take over our embassy and hold our diplomats hostage either.
Could’ve missed it, but don’t think so.
#81 – MikeN,
Scott, if solar is so viable, then why are all these countries known for scorching desert heat, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq in the 80s trying for nuclear power? Why arenât they going for more solar power plants?
I didn’t say it had been viable in the 80s. I said it is viable now. Lots of changes have happened in the last 25 years.
Sometimes developing nations are a tad behind the developed world. So, India may be a bit behind Portugal. But, here’s a company 100% devoted to solar power in India.
http://www.tatabpsolar.com/
Here’s what Portugal, a very sunny country has done already.
http://www.azobuild.com/news.asp?newsID=2279
The other three on your list have no interest in renewables. They are interested in nuclear power because from it they can make nuclear weapons. It really is genuinely true that these countries want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They also have no love for the U.S. Don’t be too fooled by the fact that Bush is in bed with the Saudis. Remember that Osama bin Forgotten is of the house of Saud. And, 16 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Remember also that this is a theocracy where Sharia law is still practiced heavily.
If Americans are reduced to living in high density housing and using mass transit/smart cars then the human race is already dead so what’s the difference?
Every second spent trying to prevent global warming is 1000 milliseconds wasted.
Meanwhile Algore has his houseboat: http://tinyurl.com/6dzdrp
#89–BCF==what does Algore having a houseboat prove except that he is totally convinced the oceans are going to rise destroying a lot of real estate?
Once again, Big Al is walking the walk, or swimming the swim, or whatever one does on a yatch besides throw money into the ocean.
#74, Cow-Paddy,
More of your bullshit Oopps, cow-shit.
Therefore, what I wrote stands. Solar canât compete cost wise with nuc.
Ok, you demanded Scott produce data, which you quickly dismissed, why don’t YOU produce something, as neutral as possible, explaining why nuclear is so much more cost effective than other, renewable sources of energy.
I am not against nuclear power. Yes, there are problems. They can be worked out though. Uranium mining and processing can also be done more safely. Where there is a will, we can find a way.
The problem with renewable energy sources is their dependability. The wind doesn’t always blow, the sun doesn’t always shine, and rivers sometimes dry up. While they may provide considerable amounts of energy to the grid, they will only be a supplementary source.
The problem with carbon based (coal, natural gas, and oil) is they emit sulfur, mercury, lead, arsenic, cobalt, radon, and a host of other heavy metals and noxious gases into the atmosphere, destroy the area they were extracted from, destroy the environment when spilled, emit CO2 gas and contaminated carbon soot, and also leave disposal problems. They also require transportation from the extraction site to the generator which also has its own issues.
So no single source is clean, dependable, or safe. A wise mix of energy sources is our best bet. Increasing the amount of cleaner, renewable sources is very smart. Creating a storage infrastructure for off peak times as well as retaining alternative sources for back up will help solve our problems.
What we do not need are the idiots like Lyin’ Mike (post #45 & 60) suggesting that because current wind and solar contribute 1%, they are not feasible. What we do need is to face the fact that we need to change ourselves from near total reliance on carbon based energy to renewable energy.
#93–Fusion==generally well done, but I will quibble:
I am against nuke energy because all the problems cannot be worked out. Storing waste that is poisonous for 100K years is not a “solution.” When we get a breeder reactor that consumes all waste, we can reconsider nuke power.
Renewable are dependable. The sun does shine ALL THE TIME, and the wind does blow ALL THE TIME. Whenever those two statements aren’t more correct than wrong, we are in bigger trouble than running out of gas.
A whole universe of alternative energy opens up once the addiction to oil is terminated. Long chain hydrocarbons from engineered algae is one. Permanent wind farms at 30,000 feet by tethered helium balloons is another. Sterling Engines running off oceanic thermal-cline is a third.
Yep, the future is cataract bright, I gotta wear shades.
The solution to long term nuclear waste storage is simple. Only it is too complicated to do.
The problems with Yucca Mountain is that it exists in the Rocky Mountains. The problem here is that mountain ranges like the Rockies are sinking into the earth’s mantle. That makes them earthquake prone and unstable. In the long run, not a great place.
What is needed for permanent storage is a deep hole in very stable, hard rock. A high portion of Canada is covered in just this kind of area, the Pre-Cambrian Shield. Most of the area is sufficiently remote to impede egress by land to help reduce terrorist attacks and thefts. There are many deep, played out mines that could be used as is or enlarged.
The remoteness can also be a safety factor as any accidents would affect few people. Reprocessing could be done here. Canada also has their own nuclear power plants (different designs) and are capable of using processed American fuel.
The downside to using the Pre-Cambian Shield is that it involves another country and trusting that it remains friendly to the US and benign in motive. And there might be something about Canada not agreeing to the long term storage of such toxic waste.
#95–Fusion==so you conclude- – – – what?
#94 “Storing waste that is poisonous for 100K years is not a âsolution.â”
Send it to the mantle. The storage problems aren’t technical, they are political.
#97–Paddy==”send it to the mantle?” You mean bury it? Groundwater? Earthquakes? Leakage? Theft? Spontaneous Nuclear Reaction? So, lets wave that magic wand of your vigorously until there are no technical problems (yes, we can dig a hole in the ground) and go with the political.
So, impliedly the political problems prevent the disposal of nuke waste. How does that make the problem go away?
#94, Bobbo,
Renewable are dependable. The sun does shine ALL THE TIME, and the wind does blow ALL THE TIME.
I have to ask. What color is the sky where you live? Around here it is sometimes blue, sometimes white/gray, sometimes a combination of the two, and black (with little spots of twinklies) about half the time.
Looking out the window, it is dead calm. The wind turbine in the distance isn’t turning and our neighbor’s flags aren’t moving. But on the other hand, there isn’t a cloud in the sky.
Oh I’m sure that somewhere the wind is blowing strong enough to power some energy. Only the few plants that are still open here require more power than what the wind has today.