4 ms·
> Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillio
by Lazare 13y ago
> Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to?
No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take.
It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...)
The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this.
And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...)
TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.
- lostlogin 13y agoI know that nuclear power is broadly seen as clean here, but the perception in Japan right now is quite different from the things I have read. A lot of diligence, commitment, money and long term storage is required to make it clean. Japan was found wanting.
- Lazare 13y agoPerception is one thing, but safety and emissions are objective facts. And nuclear power is both clean and safe. You're right that the Japanese are now very skeptical of nuclear power. But it's also an objective fact that this skepticism is dangerous, is costing real lives, and is damaging to the environment. Nuclear power is just that much safer and cleaner than the alternatives. Even after Fukishima, nuclear power is still ten times safer...than sticking solar panels on rooftops (on a per TWh basis). Cite: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
- jsilence 13y agoYou forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear are much less impressive.
- Lazare 13y agoActually, I said something about "Even with operating and decommissioning costs", so I hardly "forgot" them, I just didn't bother digging them up. And solar has some ongoing costs too, including for dismantling the panels at end of life, repairing storm damage, etc., etc. And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
- jsilence 13y agoAt least here in Germany there is no insurance for the nuclear plants. Risk is covered by the public, while the profits flow into a private company. Someone calculated, that if the plants were insured, the nuclear kWh would cost more than 60ct (normal consumer price right now about 25ct). But of course the risk and the damage are very vey hard to calculate, as we can see right now, live and in colour in Japan at the Fukushima plant. And that is the reason why no insurance company would ever offer an insurance for a nuclear plant. To me it is beyond comprehension why while looking at the horrendous desaster over there, people are still suggesting nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap alternative. It obviously is not.
- Lazare 13y agoUh.... Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives are all much, much more dangerous. We're talking about a technology which, in terms of deaths per TWh of installed capacity, is ten times safer than rooftop solar. Yes, it's safe, yes, it's clean, and our best estimates of the entire costs, including subsidies, say it's significantly cheaper than other clean options. What's beyond comprehension to me is why people refuse to look at what's truly happening in Japan, and somehow think that it does something other than prove nuclears potential. And it's trivial to show that more people will die in Japan due to their switch from nuclear power than will ever die from Fukushima. That's the real horrendous "desaster". In the real world, nuclear is quite clean, extremely safe, and moderately cheap. That's cold, objective fact.