Crosscheck wrote:
slesh wrote:
Fossil fuels will still be needed for now, but your statement of renewable energy not having the ability to power a population center is a FAIL.
Its already been clearly proven that a solar thermal field half the size of the state of Arizona could power the entire nation currently.
Wind power will be roughly 27% of this nations power supply in a mere 15 years. Its not even a matter of debating the facts here, its going to happen.
Current reality:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/ ... eport.htmlI see a very large gap in what's being touted (solar and wind) and what is actually happening.
Additionally, the 20% wind prediction is based on several major factors that are by no means foregone conclusions.
First and foremost, it
requires an enhanced transmission infrastructure (nice to talk about but much harder to do especially with a tanked economy).
It also
requires streamlined siting and permitting (have fun with all the NIMBY folks added on top of the usual environmental impact statements).
http://www.energy.gov/news/6253.htmSince I'm told the point of this exercise is to limit greenhouse gas emissions, I would have to conclude that nuclear is the only way to accomplish that in my lifetime quite frankly.
EDIT: and please don't take this the wrong way.
I'm 100% for exploiting every renewable source of energy we can find. I just tend to think we're being sold a bill of goods to forward a global political agenda and not to actually combat "global warming", real or perceived.
lol, I'm not taking it the wrong way CrossCheck. I just happen to know the numbers your quoting and the information your using as source material is and should be all over the industry. We have things coming your not aware of, things will take immense amounts of electricity. We are going to need all of the renewables, even wind and solar. I go to meetings with the DOE all of the time and the grid is going to get its make over, about 1 trillion dollars worth in total and almost all of that will be private funding.
As for Nuclear, it cost 14 billion dollars to build one of these plants and that number is conservative. The enviromentalists who speak on the dangers of these plants are correct, it is an unnecessary risk to the general population. Not while we have so many other fuel sources that are natural at our disposal. China has surppased the U.S. in the field of renewables. Sad but true. We have projects tht company are working on as an advisor firm right here, locally and they show gret promise. You can't just build a reactor for a Waste Management Plant which takes alot of power, but you could throw a couple of 45KW turbines on the property or solar to offset those costs and that are incurred for the operation or you could go the geo-thermal route if your in the right area.
China = 4000+ coal fired power plants
U.S. = 1482 current coal fired power plants.
Then there is Buffet, there is a reason he bought Burlington Railroad. It was for the track runs crrenlty in place from the midwest to the west coast. He was no dummy, he is fully aware of the magnatic levatatioin passenger and cargo trains that are in the planning for the future in this nation. With that on the plate, he now owns the runs that most of the new tracks will be built on. MagLevs take immense amounts electricity to operate and the electricity is derived from regional sources. Alot is happeneing beyond what you see in the news or read on the DOE or other published sights.
Like I said, my company reads business plans and pro forma's all day long. Actually, myself and my staff do vet about 3 utility sized projects a week. Its over for fossil fuels, the supply to demand ratio establishes this fact alone.