It almost annoys me that people still believe that solar power generation is not economically viable. You can set yourself up with solar power that won't require replacing for 20 years and is subsidised by the federal and some state governments. These systems don't require backup generators when you align then with small wind generators. This can be difficult if you live in a city, but next year you will have access to new technology will reduce the costs and greatly improve efficiency you need back up generation, then it can be run on methane derived from the property, or biodiesel that you can grow yourself if need be. You can also have a solar hot water system that works without sun and will reduce you hot water costs by 75%. Our system runs our business and household, never runs out of power and paid for its self in 3-4 years, now we have free energy for the next 20 years, with no blackouts or down time.

Why you persist in trying to live within the past technologies is beyond me. Nuclear is not a realistic or a viable option, it has yet to come to terms with its problems. Combining eco friendly technologies will benefit us all.

Off course we can keep our heads firmly in the sand hoping that more oil or the nuclear problems are solved, but thats what we are doing now whilst the answers are all around us. As Scout points out, there isn't money in giving people control over their energy supplies. There will be no change until, society collapses, or energy control is taken from the elite and given to the consumer.

Froggie, why don't you actually have a look at the technology before you make stupid statements about the economics of it. Spend $10000, get a third rebate, repays itself over say 5-6 years, then you have at least 15 years of free power. Gel batteries have a life of more than 20 years and within two years, new technology batteries will double that and reduce costs.

Alchemist
I live in the middle of a large city in an apartment. Obviously if I wanted to install solar energy (PV or hot water), I would have to convince my fellow owners to invest in it with me.
I did investigate it some time ago, and discovered that the cost of an installation to supply the whole building would be prohibitive. A paper issued by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has a table in it showing that the cost of PV at 250.00-400.00 $/MWh is about 6 times more expensive than electricity generated from coal.
Hot water via solar energy is more attractive at only twice the cost of electricity from coal.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/energy_future/docs/energy_chapter_8.pdf
This is not far off what my investigations calculated it to be, via a Net Present Value calculation comparing the cost of the installation with simply being connected to the grid. No company would ever make such an investment, as it would be strongly negative.
I would also refer you to the following article about the cost of PV solar energy.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/15/1087244917959.html
This is electricity for residential purposes. There are many other users of electricity in Australia, including commerce, industry and government. Industry especially (aluminium production for example) requires large supplies of electricity. These industries need a lot of assured base-load power, and could not be expected to rely on solar or wind energy.
Alchemist, as your name implies, maybe you have discovered a way to reduce the cost of solar energy to a reasonable level.
Maybe solar will become viable in the future, with new technology,(Maybe nanotechnology) but that day is not here yet.

Froggie, in your situation there would have to be a quantum leap in technology to provide power for close quarters living. However things have changed and we have the development of the Stirling solar generator, http://www.stirlingenergy.com/solar_overview.htm , the quantum solar hot water heater, http:www.quantumenergy.com.au/ , solar towers, http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/ sunballs http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/SolarBall-Solar-Energy.htm , ultra bright LED lighting, and 3rd generation solar cells that were developed for the mars rovers power supply. Build your house with a solar roof, http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/content.jsp?sectno=2&subno=8

It is all there, but as it can't be monopolised, it will not be promoted or developed properly. If you live in a city and have access to unfetted sun and or wind, then you could drastically reduce your energy costs. Problem is all your gear may get stolen. Note the growth in low voltage lighting in homes and the numerous equipment that requires low voltage power or charging, electronic equipment runs mainly on 12v dc rails.

They make us believe that only monopolised things work in this economic society. What we must remember is that you can have an environment without an economy, but you can't have an economy without an environment and that goes for any environment, social, political, natural, etc.

Making small customers self sufficient, would lower grid loads and in rural area give a boost to local industry, lowering their costs with cheaper power. It would also create more jobs and small industries to maintain and install equipment. As development grew, people would update just as they do now making it a self sustaining industry. We must get away from burning up every resource on the planet, before we burn ourselves out.

I agree with the Alchemist, regardless of the drawbacks of nuclear power, in the end the number one reason not to bother exploring that particular failed experiment is the cost.

Harnessing solar and wind power combined with increasing the efficiency of our energy usage makes nuclear completely unnecessary (and it has always sucked in more taxpayer subsidies overseas than solar ever has, so don't bother muttering about extra taxes for renewable energy).

Wind power overseas is already cheaper than nuclear (and in some places it is now cheaper than natural gas fired power as natural gas prices soar). Solar will be cheaper than nuclear in the coming years.

At the end of the day we should be working towards a clean, distributed energy future, not trying to choose between the ugly outmoded energy technologies of the past.

I think the example of the Soviet Union proved the drawbacks of both nuclear power and massive centralisation pretty well.

Biggav
The main problem with wind and solar is that they are diffuse and not constant, and their electricity output cannot be stored on any large scale. So they need to be used when available, and other supply brought in when they are not delivering.

This unpredictable and intermittent character becomes a problem when the electricity demand is largely for constant, reliable supply - certainly it is not readily matched to daylight hours or when the wind happens to blow. We need to be able to supply electricity to our hospitals, factories, and transport networks. Without a continuous, reliable electricity supply, essential services will grind to a halt.

Another negative for many people concerning wind is that the towers and turbines are considered to be ugly - not to mention the noise pollution- so much so that there are people demonstrating against having them in their area.

The idea that nuclear is subsidised or more expensive than wind is simply wrong. A UK Royal Academy of Engineering report in 2004 looked at electricity generation costs from new plant in the UK on a more credible basis than hitherto. In particular it aimed to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This meant adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power.

Froggie, you stated: "Wind power was shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power."

AT PRESENT. All new technologies start out as expensive - it would be shortsighted to restrict development of renewable energies, when we are facing an energy crisis.

Besides nothing can solve the basic problem of nuclear waste - it is the only energy source that produces a waste product that is toxic virtually indefinitely. This long-term permanent cost is never sufficiently factored in.

EG - Australia as a storage dump for nuclear waste:

"We occasionally get big earthquakes in Australia (up to about magnitude 7) and the big ones have tended to occur in somewhat unexpected places like Tennant Creek. The occurrences of such earthquakes imply that we still have much to learn about our earthquake activity. From the point of view of long-term waste disposal this is very important, since prior to the 1988 (M 6.8) quake, Tennant Creek might have been viewed as one of the most appropriate parts of the continent for a storage facility.
Australia is not the most stable of continental regions, although the levels of earthquake risk are low by global standards. To the extent that past earthquake activity provides a guide to future tectonic activity, Australia would not appear to provide the most tectonically stable environments for long-term waste facilities. However, earthquake risk is just one of the 'geologic' factors relevant to evaluating long-term integrity of waste storage facilities, and other factors such as the groundwater conditions, need to be evaluated in any comprehensive assessment of risk.
- Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne."

Other renewables such as biofuels are also being neglected.

"The biodiesel industry is taking off. But its growth is a textbook case of how the market can stifle innovation, even when there's so much to gain, reports Rebecca Martin."

The rest of her report may be accessed at:

http://www.abc.net.au/catapult/indepth/s1515906.htm

The point is that we must explore every avenue to sustain our current levels of energy consumption.

BTW - really enjoying input from all posters here - very refreshing.