The Forum > Article Comments > Is solar power the answer? > Comments
Is solar power the answer? : Comments
By Don Aitkin, published 7/12/2012In the 80s I argued we had to support excellent research and offered solar energy as an example.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 10 December 2012 10:07:12 AM
| |
alarmist, not really.
I have accepted rocky times ahead. i merely do what i think will be in my self-interest, as best as I can. I also offer my opinion, as reasoned as i can according to my summary of events. i also work for whoever will pay me as long as work is legal, as best as i can. What is it like not acting in a self interested way, assuming you are a rare excpetion to that rule. Posted by Chris Lewis, Monday, 10 December 2012 10:16:56 AM
| |
Taswegian
The wiki article re electric prices I would generally accept ,apart from the fact that they seem very confused about nuclear power we have the all the terms below listed in parts of the article. Advanced Nuclear New nuclear Nuclear The most useful price is what nuclear cost historically and that is much greater than in the article, I have seen figures quoted as high as $2 Kwh but I am willing to accept the figures below as probably in the right ball park, but even then the figures don't include insurance provisions nor I suspect do they take into account that only half of the nuclear plants where construction was started were actually completed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, the marginal levelized cost for "a 1,000-MWe facility built in 2009 would be 41.2 to 80.3 cents/kWh, presuming one actually takes into account construction, operation and fuel, reprocessing, waste storage, and decommissioning".[58] In my view anything is better than pumping excess co2 into the air but it seems to me that nuclear has too many problems and is not cheaper than mainstream renewables. You only have to look at the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster . They shut down all of the nuclear plants in the country thus losing 30% of there capacity. The clean up costs are up in the 10s of billions and several plants will never come back online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Insurance As a matter of interest I am a member of a club that installed a solar photovoltaic system of some years ago at a cost of some $28,000 (today’s cost is much less). We were quoted a cost $50,000 to connect us to the grid, We are able to supply all our needs except for 3 or 4 days of the year when we have to fire up the back generator. The result no bills but we do set aside money for new batteries in about 10 years time. Posted by warmair, Monday, 10 December 2012 1:56:03 PM
| |
Hot Rocks Geothermal has GOT to be made to work.
There is all the energy we could ever need down there. I was surprised at the comment that CO2 comes up with the steam. The rocks are granite, how would the co2 get out if it is there at all. Whatever it costs, it must be made to work, even if it requires the government to just take it over. We do not have a lot of time, world peak coal is about 2025 and that will push the price of our coal to very high levels. Natural gas from shale is looking like a flash in the pan. Decline rates between 40% & 60% will see to that. Posted by Bazz, Monday, 10 December 2012 4:05:45 PM
| |
Bazz,
Hot rocks has sunk without a trace. It presently consumes nearly as much energy to set up as it generates, and consumes vast quantities of water in the desert. Nice try but no cigar. Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 11 December 2012 7:40:37 AM
| |
Hot rocks has sunk without a trace. It presently consumes nearly as much energy to set up as it generates, and consumes vast quantities of water in the desert.
Nice try but no cigar. Posted by Shadow Minister ___________________________________________ A few points The plan is to recycle the water The do not consume more power they produce, but the current technology is expensive. The anticipated life span of power plants is around 30 years There are currently two plants in the world producing commercial amounts of power.There may be others. The potential is huge but at this stage the technology is experimental. Time will tell how useful this technology is. In France Soultz-sous-Forêts http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/05/geothermal-power-warming-to-a-global-opportunity Landau in south western Germany http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/06/geothermal-electricity-booming-in-germany-52588 The situation in Australia is well summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia Posted by warmair, Saturday, 15 December 2012 11:40:57 AM
|
Typical AGW alarmist.