 Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector 
I predict that by the time the next possible newly-built-from-the-ground-up nuclear plant goes online in the US, perhaps seven (or more) years from now, the cost of solar cell-produced power per kiloWatt-hour will very likely drop to a small fraction of what it costs today. And this is because solar cell technology is currently and quickly evolving such that their conversion efficiencies are growing while, at the same time, they are becoming cheaper to manufacture.
And, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive. (Not to mention the fact that the fuel for non-breeder-type nuclear reactors, just like oil, is a non-renewable, finite commodity that will always increase in price, on average, in the future. And, as well as being even more expensive than conventional nuclear reactors, breeder-type reactors carry substantial security and safety risks.) And, who do you think will end up paying for them? The consumer, meaning us, will end up paying for them in the end. So, I'd rather spend my hard-earned money intelligently, at least as a homeowner, than throw my money away on technologies that are outdated and, more importantly, more expensive to me in the end.
(Fossil fuel and electric heating and standard electric air conditioning systems are significantly less efficient at heating and cooling a home than geothermal heating and cooling systems. So, if a homeowner is to install geothermal heating and cooling in their home today and invest in solar cell technology in seven to ten years from now, he or she could potentially “live off the grid” in the future while, at the same time, spend less money to heat, cool, and power their home in the future.) | That's a very well thought out response! I agree with the negatives you point out on nuclear power as well but still think we need a low cost clean electric source to encourage electrical powered autos to reduce oil demand. The cost of energy directly effects the economy and causes employers to move to lower energy sources. My preference of low cost/clean electric comes from natural sources hydro or wave power along with wind and solar. The environmentalist don't like hydro electric that requires dams that block natural water flows and interferes with habitat. There are micro hydro electric systems that don't interfere with habitat, in fact I tried to introduce such an idea to the Bush administration and my governor. I'll take a moment to explain the idea below...
The total plan outlined a governor's energy challenge that would identify technologies that could possibly replace carbon based energy. It employed state and private universities science and engineering departments and also employed state and federal assets to state governors needs, for example state army national guard/federal army reserve/active training funds for engineering units would be dictated by the governor in support of developing test constructions identified by the universities. Governors would make available labor from court ordered community service, prison labor and federal prison labor all coordinated by each governor's team. The most efficient models would be given federal grants and granted management by the winning state(s).
My environmental friendly micro hydro electric system goes as follows:
Concept:Using the governor's energy task force above that contains an efficient low cost technical/functional workforce develop a system that meets several community needs including fresh water, flood control and sustainability with low impact on the environment.
Water from higher altitude reservoirs would be placed in high volume steel pipes to small community reservoirs. Water, going down hill creates head pressure that continually multiplies. At each community place a hydro electric turbine on the pipe to capture the horsepower created by the head pressure. Water collected from the bottom of the community reservoir is drawn from the bottom of the reservoir through a combination of aggregate and sand to serve the water purification for the community. But in this case half of the water would be diverted to the next community where the process continues to communities at lower elevations. For example, management of flooding and water needs of lower altitudes could be from a high altitude state like Colorado at 5,000 feet to communities at all lower elevations to Texas. Or from Michigan to Florida resulting in abilities to move excess water from one region with too much to another like Atlanta last year that had too little.
Well, President Bush sent me a parchment letter with an original fountain pen signature suitable for framing about eight weeks later... Actually, I guess a GS 2 with access to his signature machine sent it to me... my governor never even sent me a note. |