I am a big proponent of nuclear power as well, but i do electric market forecasts for a living. Electricity prices in the US as presently forecasted simply will not allow a brand new nuclear power plant to generate the sort of margin needed to repay its initial construction cost over it's normal operating life. The problem with nuclear power plants is its initial acquisition cost comes in indivisible packets of 5-6 billion dollars each. Sure it is dirt cheap to run once it's built, but there has to be enough margin between the price at which it can sell the electricity, and the cost at which it generates the electricity, to cover the 5-6 billion plus interest over it's life time. Several developments makes that implausible:
1. New techniques to extract natural gas by fracturing shale rocks expanded the size of known gas reserves enormously, driving down natural gas prices and making natural-gas fired power plants so cheap to run as to drive down overall power prices during both on-peak and off-peak periods.
2. The fact the wind turbines generates energy when no body wants the energy means energy prices off-peak can actually go negative.

The bottom line is definitely what matters at present. Probably always will be. (Not without reason, just so people don't get the idea I'm some kind of commie..lol)

@Chuck, what do think of the practicality of geothermal energy?

(July 6, 2011 at 2:33 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: @Chuck, what do think of the practicality of geothermal energy?

Both the physical feasibility and the economic practicality of geothermal energy depends on the availability of appropriate geological condition. There are far fewer areas where one could build economic geothermal power plants than there are where one might build a practical wind or solar farm. So in the US, large scale geothermal physical potential (not necessarily economic potential) exists mainly in Hawaii, Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, parts of Montana, parts of Texas.

Also, we appear to not be very good at predicting what the sustainable level of output from geothermal field is. The notion one could keep drilling new wells in the same geothermal field to get more geothermal energy does not appear to have been born out by experiences with some early large scale Geothermal power plants. The productivity of some large geothermal fields appear to decline much faster than what had been expected when the fields were first developed, and new wells drilled in the old field produce less and less steam for the same cost. So some geothermal plants are already running at less 50% designed capacity just 20 years after coming online.

One should not count on Geothermal energy to do a very large part in going green.

Solar, wind, 4th gen breeder reactors and even reduced emissions conventional power generation all have a place in future energy production. I like solar thermal myself. Heat is easier to store than electricity. The Hualapai Valley Solar Project is a planned 340 MW parabolic trough power plant to be built near Kingman, AZ. It will produce the equivalent output of more than 2 large nuclear reactors when completed. The estimated cost to build a two reactor nuclear plant is about $17 billion. It has been estimated that the Hualapai Valley plant is going to cost about $2 billion to build. Plus operations at the solar facility are going to cost a fraction of what it would to operate a similar sized nuclear facility.

(July 6, 2011 at 11:24 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: The Hualapai Valley Solar Project is a planned 340 MW parabolic trough power plant to be built near Kingman, AZ. It will produce the equivalent output of more than 2 large nuclear reactors when completed. The estimated cost to build a two reactor nuclear plant is about $17 billion. It has been estimated that the Hualapai Valley plant is going to cost about $2 billion to build. Plus operations at the solar facility are going to cost a fraction of what it would to operate a similar sized nuclear facility.

Huh, no. A modern large nuclear reactor would support power output in the 1200-1600 MW range, depending on the design, and would cost about 6-8 billion to permit and build. So MW capacity for MW capacity is cheaper than your solar plant to build. Furthermore a nuclear reactor would be able to operate at full power 24X7, unlike a solar plant, which only operate near full power in the middle part of the day and shuts down completely by night. So even if the nominal maximum power output is the same, a nuclear plant can deliver 3 time more energy over the same period as a solar plant, thus making it easier to recoup initial investment.

Solar thermal is falling behind photo-voltaic in approaching grid parity (grid parity means having the ability to compete economically without needing government subsidy)

Parabolics are mirror farms aren't they? or am I thinking of something else. I wonder if they factor in the energy needed to produce all that windex.

The whys of paying places like Brazil to drill for oil when we have access to it here in the States bug the shit out of me. While we are in the process of inventing or perfecting greener energy sources, it seems senseless to add insult to injury via debt.

(July 7, 2011 at 1:27 am)Epimethean Wrote: The whys of paying places like Brazil to drill for oil when we have access to it here in the States bug the shit out of me.

Well c'mon, you don't want to waste your own energy resources do you? When the shit hits the fan you want to have an energy source of your own, and it makes good business sense to keep hold of your assets for when you really need them. If you can get away with paying other countries to produce oil for you when you have it in your back yard it prolongs the amount of time you can sustain using oil.

If only it were so calculated, Nap.