Just TAX it....

[Bee Happy]

nuclear tourist?
I'm assuming those costs are averaged over a 20 year lifespan. a nuke plant's actual working life expectancy is about 60 years. of course it has to be 'recommissioned' at the end of 20 years - I may even be using the wrong term, but it's essentially a license renewal of sorts.
the 60 year amortization changes all of it. try this site:  http://www.georgiapower.com/nuclear/othertechnologies.asp.
case in point -why are people in Ontario, Canada paying about 4.5 cents per kwh for nuclear (canadian, of course) and I'm paying 9.6 US for NG power?
...and then theres the zero emissions.

[Bodo]

SgtMAj,

I'm sorry, but your story is missing a vital component.  How much space is required!

 

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Please check your numbers again.  If wind and solar were THAT cheap when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, the free market would already have swung that way

[SgtMaj]

nuclear tourist?
I'm assuming those costs are averaged over a 20 year lifespan. a nuke plant's actual working life expectancy is about 60 years. of course it has to be 'recommissioned' at the end of 20 years - I may even be using the wrong term, but it's essentially a license renewal of sorts.
the 60 year amortization changes all of it. try this site:  http://www.georgiapower.com/nuclear/othertechnologies.asp.
case in point -why are people in Ontario, Canada paying about 4.5 cents per kwh for nuclear (canadian, of course) and I'm paying 9.6 US for NG power?
...and then theres the zero emissions.

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

[SgtMaj]

SgtMAj,

I'm sorry, but your story is missing a vital component.  How much space is required!

 

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/13/mackay.energy/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Please check your numbers again.  If wind and solar were THAT cheap when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear, the free market would already have swung that way

And then there's the land required for:
mining of the uranium ore,
conversion to U3O8 (uranium oxide - yellowcake form),
conversion to uranium hexafluoride,
enrichment from 0.7% U235 to 2-5% U235,
conversion to uranium dioxide (UO2) pellets,
loading of the fellets into rods, then into fuel assemblies.
Then finally the reactor site... but wait, we're not finished...
then there's the waste processing facility
and finally the waste storage facility

Holy cow that's a lot of land!!!  Screw that, I need about 20 square meters to provide enough power for me and about 300 of my closest neighbors.  But like I said before (not that anyone listens), no one single solution is going to meet our needs now or anytime in the forseeable future.

PS - please name the last year that power was a free market.  The market is going to stay where they have infastructure already in place.  Alternative electricity sources are good for reducing or eliminating further fossil plant construction, but not to eliminate current fossil plants.

[Scadsobees]

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

Whew...that is for sure.  They tried that with windmills and some eastern blueblood said "Not..ah..if its going to..ah...spoil the view of my..ah..cottage on the coast!"

[Bee Happy]

That's all about the subsidies... power is not a free market.

Whew...that is for sure.  They tried that with windmills and some eastern blueblood said "Not..ah..if its going to..ah...spoil the view of my..ah..cottage on the coast!"

the funniest part of the hypocrisy? -The proposed wind turbines were WAY offshore - not to even be seen from the coastline.
(can't be subsidies; the Canadian gov't is relatively socialist and nuke plants are INSANELY profitable -no self respecting socialist would approve of subsidizing capitalist pig nuke plants making money hand over fist) yeah, yeah, I know socialism and communism are not the same. (and they're not,  actual socialism doesn't hate capitalism.)

[Scadsobees]

Holy cow that's a lot of land!!!  Screw that, I need about 20 square meters to provide enough power for me and about 300 of my closest neighbors. 

Thats funny!  I can just imagine flying over a city in the dark still of winter, and seeing a windmill with 300 dark houses around it...

You are right about no single source being the answer.  And as wonderful as it is to consider, there will be no way to get away from a solid, consistent, non-environental-reliant source of energy either.

And there is NO energy that we will ultimately produce that the government won't try to tax.  If we all had our personal windmills and that worked, the government would be taxing the WIND!!!

[dragonfly]

yeah, yeah, I know socialism and communism are not the same. (and they're not,  actual socialism doesn't hate capitalism.)

In some instances, socialism tends to grow out of capitalism.

[dragonfly]

  If we all had our personal windmills and that worked, the government would be taxing the WIND!!!

Excellent point! I'll bet you are right on the money.

[kathyp]

In some instances, socialism tends to grow out of capitalism.

capitalism brings wealth, comfort, and innovation.  that success makes socialism seem viable.  unfortunately, socialism destroys incentive thus destroying capitalism.  the government must take more and more from producers to support government programs, and producers then produce less and less as there is no longer reward for success.  eventually the system fails or the government tries to force production.  failure bring collapse of the system.  poverty, shortages, etc.  government force brings a totalitarian government micromanaging or owning everything in the country. 

people often lump socialism and communism together.  that is inaccurate.  however, it is accurate to say that it is a very short step from socialism to communism when socialism fails.