Sharon asks…
Do you agree with Nature magazine that solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity?
. . . and that coal and nuclear are the cheapest?
In the current issue of Nature, page 872 shows a comparison of costs of producing electricity.
The cheapest is coal without carbon capture storage (“CCS”). Then nuclear. Followed by coal “with mature CCS”, then municipal solid waste, then wind onshore, biomass, wind offshore and finally, at the extreme end of cost is solar photovoltaic.
So – if you don’t like coal, then it seems that nuclear is the way to go. Or do you disagree with the findings presented by Nature?
.
.
EDIT @ gcnp58
No, I don’t want to ask that. You go off into your tie-dyed world of living by candlelight if you like, and good luck to you. But please don’t try and force the rest of the world to conform to your vision for it. There’s a word for that.
.
admin answers:
Solar energy is very expensive compared to other alternatives.. That is because of the lowenergy density of sunlight. Anything that has to be collected over a larger area is more expensive. The manufacturing cost and mantaineance are high. There are also toxic waste issues with the manufacturing.
Another problem with solar is where do you put then. The green loving politicians in the state of California have made it illegal to put solar panels in the desert. Even in areas with the most sun there are days that there is no sun. To use sun more than a few hours a day, you have to move the panels to track the sun. That uses energy. And makes the systems more expensive. This is different than windmills that can use the wind to move themselves.
Nuclear power is intentionally made more expensive by politicians, becuase they are not interested in a solution to the problem. They sabotage all attempts to make safe centralized spent fuel storage and recycling, and then complain that there is no where to store the spent fuel.
If we all had nuclear power, there would be no need for climate change research, cap and trade.
Whether you believe in climate change or not, it would not matter.
There would be no be no purpose in life for certain politicians.
Many who support climate change agenda, only do so because they what they really want is to destroy our way of life. If they get their way, when everything is destroyed beyond any recovery, they will say I am bored now, can you put things back the way they were?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers