use solar and wind, while the U.S. is going nuclear.

Freaking idiots. But hey let's try to bully other countries all we can into abandoning their nuclear programs.

Seems to me like we should have been using nuclear power for years. Europe gets most of their energy from nuclear, why don't we? Mostly because of the scare tactics radicals have thrown out trying to make people think it is too dangerous even though it isn't true. Coal pollution has harmed 100s of times more people than nuclear.

Keith

Nuclear power is the cheapest most reliable way to go but it shouldn't be an excuse to build nuclear weapons.

when you've stated goals as a nation to wipe other nations off the map or shown yourself as a leader to be insane/cuckoo/off your rocker then the international community will not let you use nuclear power as you cannot be trusted with it. the U.S. already has nuclear power and weapons so as long as newest technologies are used for safety and efficiently nuclear is a great way to go. not so much for say North Korea or Iran where they can't be trusted.

Cost wise nuclear knocks the socks off solar and wind. certainly solar and wind technology
should be developed but we should take advantage of what nuclear has to offer.

From nuclear. As to bullying other countries, Iran is a state sponsor of Hezbollah.

France currently generates 76% of their power by nuclear reactors, whereas the United States only generates 20%. Nuclear is without a doubt the cheapest form of electricity generation there is...cheaper than solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrogen, ethanol, coal, oil. Coal is the second cheapest.
If we want to get away from foreign oil, then we should start with coal driven electric generation (since people tend to freak out about nuclear). Then when people start to accept Nuclear power, move in that direction.
Look...we can either shutdown production of our products/economy and move back to the stone ages, or we can work on viable alternatives that give us the electricity and heat we want along with all our things that make civilized life possible.

You should look in a mirror as you make that comment. I see nothing wrong with having other nations give up nuclear weapons programs. Peaceful nuclear programs are not an issue, but the types of reactors that provide materials for bomb-building are not a good thing to have in the world. Also, nuclear power may well be cleaner than solar and wind - both of those methods have undesirable side-effects.

You are a moron.

There is a huge difference between nuclear power stations and nuclear *weapons* programs. In fact if I remember correctly, most new civilian power reactors don't even produce the by-products necessary to make nuclear weapons anymore. They aren't the right type of reactor.

Okay. On a bright day, the sun will put about 1Watt/square meter to the earth's surface at sea level. Assuming that solar panels take an astounding leap forward and we can get 40% conversion of solar to electrical (shown in the lab, but years away from commercialization), we can get .4W/M2 of electricity from the sun.
The forecast for world electrical consumption for 2015 is 22,289 billion kWh. If we were to generate all of that via solar power, we would need solar panels that are 2,456,002 square miles, or roughly 9.38 times the size of Texas.

Screw this light water bunk, I want my plutonium. :P

The surface of the Earth receives at peak daylight 900-1,000 Watts per square meter. Using something like Solar 2, which was a central receiver design with molten-salt storage for round the clock 'dispatchable' power, Sandia National Labs calculated that we could theoretically get 70% of our annual power for a few cents per kWh.

Nuclear wise, why not do something like sodium fast breeder reactors with environmental controls and sterling engines in order to maximize efficiency and keep the sodium a safe distance away from moisture?

1 watt/m^2? We'd all be dead and earth will be a lifeless husk. That's less than the cosmic background radiation. Try about 760 watts/m^2 on a good cloudless day. Solar cell efficiency is about 12% right now with some reaching as high as 20%.

Brad, where did you get a number of 1watt/square meter? I've seen number much closer to 1000. Think about how bright it is to stare at a white surface illuminated by the sun versus a 100 watt bulb that's right up against it. 1watt/square meter is just way off.

Sunlight on a clear day is about 1 kW/square meter on the earth's surface. A good solar panel is about 15% efficient in converting sunlight to electricity, so a 1-square-meter panel in full sun will put out about 150 watts.

Replacing a century of non-renewable fossil fuel use with a century (or two) of non-renewable mineral fuel use sounds like a seriously bad idea to me.

Also, if you do the research, you will find that nuclear is *not* cheap. Nuclear industries around the world have required heavy subsidisation and tax incentives to get started - that is: big businessmen get tax breaks *and* a cash hand-out from *our* paid taxes to build a power station and then make more money off us. I mean - honestly - how many times have we heard that nuclear is so cheap it won't need to be metered, but where in the world have we actually heard of consumers having unmetered nuclear power when it cuts to the chase?

Solar, solar thermal, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal and tidal power will *also* require heavy tax breaks for continued development, but it there is credible evidence that it *can* meet our baseload needs with some more development. We also need to learn to be more frugal though.

And *now* is the time, not in 200 years when our nuclear fuel supplies are exhausted and we're desperate.

The actual power per square meter from the sun is on the order of one killowatt. This changes the math a bit.

I actually work for a company that has nuclear plants, and will be building some more in a few years. 2000 mw of nuclear capacity will cost us 6 billion. 2000 mw of solar even at this ' efficient ' rate will cost 18 billion. Thats 3 times the cost. The fuel for nuclear is so cheap it's hardly even worth factoring in. Plus, you cannot use solar in areas with high cloud cover, which is most of the industrialized world.

[How much to maintain the long-term storage facilities for the harmful waste produced? And here's an idea. Instead of having centralized facilities, how about creating some kind of system that is available for sale? The end consumers buy the package, install it in their own back yard, and begin taking steps to keep reduce their grid use. -Rick]

Everyone is on the wrong track.
Water is the way to go but the US govt does not want this technology out.
Cold Fusion technology is the way to go

I'm really really tired to read this US vs the rest of the world thing. The US is an empire, period. They'll invent any type of bullshit to muscle their way into where or what they want, period. Here we are discussing nuclear power, and not mentioning that the US is the only country that used nuclear bombs against civilians. At least I find some consolation with the thought that every empire in history went down in flames... and that US will never dare to muscle China. Hope US goes down soon... I really can't stand Bush and all those monkeys with him.

Here we are talking about nuclear power plants, not nukes. Obviously the US has nukes, that is old news.
Umm.... in your own words, if you can, please explain why the US and China won't go to war with each other. I happen to agree that they won't, but I don't think you have a clue as to why they won't.

Also, I am not sure if you know how the US works, Bush is in his final roughly 14 months of presidency. So, if the only reason you hate the US is because of him, you will be able to stop hating soon.

"not mentioning that the US is the only country that used nuclear bombs against civilians"

What country are you from in which these two A-Bombs didn't effectassist in keeping your way of life? Those 2 A-Bombs saved more lives than they cost.

Don't equate president Bush with the US. Plenty of US citizens over here are none too happy with him right now, and most of us are just waiting for January 2009 when he's out of here. I think no matter who wins our next election, you will see a fundamental change in the US foreign policy for the better.

As for nuclear plants, there are very good reasons why the US needs them (meet energy demand at a competitive price, reduce foreign oil dependency, gain leverage vs. terrorism, stabilize our economy, etc.). There's also good reasons why some countries shouldn't have them: for instance, why would a small country with a tiny fraction of the energy needs of the US and more oil in the ground that anyone else need a fast breeder reactor? I'll give you a hint: it isn't for energy production.

Sorry, I meant 1 kw/m2. You get the idea. Do the math, and we still have a solar panel over 9 times the size of texas. Also, if solar panels are 12% efficient (40% is a theoretical lab estimate, far from commercialization), then we are looking at a solar panel 31 times the size of Texas.

Wind in this country accounts for just 1/2 of 1 percent of our energy, and demand will grow at 2% per year for the next 20 years. Only solar thermal, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal and perhaps some dispatchable wave will be our future sources of power. Wind cost 5 to 8 times more than nucelar to construct, when based on actual output over the facilities lifespan (60 years for nuclear, 30 years for wind) and wind is mostly useless - unpredicable, uncontrollable, etc. as is photovoltaic and most wave generators. Anti-nuclear environmentalists , by blocking nuclear power for 30 years, are almost solely responsible for global warming. Their protection of old forests has also led to increased carbon and warming - old trees absorb practically no carbon dioxide and should be removed for younger growth.

To all the US hater out there. Without the US Europe would be speaking Russian. China the next emerging superpower is somehow going to be better than the US. Despite all of the US's meddling in the worlds affairs the net effect is positive at very least better than the alternative. Anyone that can't see that needs to re-think the alternatives.

On topic all alternatives should be rapidly explored and implemented. Energy is a global problem that we need to solve before fossil fuels run out. Hopefully some white suited pinhead well crack the fusion nut soon as that could solve everyone problem.

The average home should not consume anymore than about 1000-1200KW hours per month (with energy efficient lights and appliances). It is not so expensive to have at least 1000KW solar panels on every roof, generating that energy back to the grid. The energy companies then only have to generate the slack of those houses and for people in apartments or high-rise buildings and office blocks and night time. The energy companies could then become more like an energy broker than a producer. This would bring down the requirements for carbon power plants or nuclear waste.
Depending on the power company, some houses may even get a rebate on the power they put back in the grid.
More people buy the solar tech, the cheaper it becomes.

There is a lot of wasted roof space across the countries, and they could be making power.

I was part of a team that was quoting neighborhood-scale gas turbine / HVAC systems. Each unit would use a co-gen system to maximize efficiency. I think each would have powered/heated/cooled and provided hot water for approx 100 homes.

Anything that gets rid of "the grid" is a good thing. That grid is an enormously expensive liability - not too mention ugly.

I wanna know what's so wrong with the solar system we currently inhabit that China thinks they can add ten million more in the next year. Where are they gonna get all the new planets? One new star takes time and money to create, and I don't think China has the stones. Blah blah, solar power is yerars off wah. No one is concerned that China can make solar systems? They can't even make paint without F^*#&Ng it up.

So thats the answer then. Cover texas with solar panels. solve several problems at the same time!

oh and rx-7-guy, europe wouldnt be speaking russian. Try German first, and even that isnt so sure. If USA hadnt got involved, there is a good chance Germany and Russia would of wiped each other out*.

Not that we dont appreciate your help back then, but the "without the US the world would of ceased to exist" is a bit OTT.


*or at least caused so much damage, they wouldn't of been able to become super powers.

Unless he was just kidding around of course. Then he's just an ass and probably sniffs Chinese paint.

Anyway.

I agree with standov. There should be solar panels on each roof in the world. A big problem with a centralized grid is that a lot of power is wasted.

And with anybody that thinks solar is not viable in cloudy countries I would like to ask why Germany is investing billions in solar power? German engineers are not known for their stupidity.

I think that if there is a 100% safe, renewable nuclear solution out there that generates no dangerous nuclear waste then it is wonderful and it should be used. And even if such a solution exists then it should not be used by lazy people as an excuse to not get solar power panels on their roofs. Every US citizen should at least. There is apparently a sizable tax rebate for doing so. I suppose the EU has similar incentives.

Makes me wish I lived in America actually. I cannot understand why everybody there is not jumping to get solar power systems on their roofs. The people of the land of the free does not seem to want to be free even of the power providing companies.

In the end I do not think America is bad. Clean tech is advancing fast. I'd just like to see the average American citizen getting behind these technologies.

Solar power
Wind power
Wave power
Tidal power
Hydro power
The next generation garbage power plants
Hydrogen fuel cell cars
Energy efficient lights, computers, etc...

There is so much that can be done that will probably not completely get rid of all CO2 pollution, but it will most probably be enough so that the world's natural systems can cope with it.

The main problem with photovoltaic solar power generation is that it is a short-term plug for a big hole. A solar panel's capability of producing electricity degrades, over time. I don't mean several decades, either...After just 10 years in use, a photovoltaic panel is at a significantly reduced capacity. Couple that with the fact that the things are produced with some environmentally unfriendly materials, and perhaps that sort of solar power doesn't sound like the answer to your prayers, any more.

The type of solar power that IS viable is thermal. Use the light in either the giant convection generators that have been planned (built?) or in giant solar ovens that drive the traditional steam turbines that all other types of power plants use. These sorts of things are actually endothermic, since they do nothing but suck heat up and use it to produce electricity. Otherwise, the energy would have just hit the ground and been converted to heat anyway.

I'm beginning to ramble, now, but hopefully you get the point now.