I think green renewables such as wind and solar would of been the way to go had we of started about 200 years ago. We didn't. Instead we built our
society on fossil fuels, which many liken to 'stored sunlight'. Realistically if we want an alternative to them, I don't think we can count on
idealogical dreams that are expensive, and unreliable, but instead we need to count on existing reliable, proven, dense, efficient, and relatively
cheap, sources of power. I don't see any other option to Nuclear. Natural Gas is half decent, although it still comes from places like Russia, emits
1/4 the CO2 of coal, and is a fossil fuel.
According to the Energy Information Administration, wind power capital cost is $1,923 per kilowatt for onshore wind, and $3,851 for offshore wind.
These cost projections are extremely similar to the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Council for Capital Formation. In 2008,
wind generating capacity in the U.S. totaled 25,170 megawatts and generated 52.0 million megawatt hours. That's a
capacity factor of 23.5% (abysmal - unreliable). Therefore, as the wind does not blow at
maximum speed all the time, each kilowatt of
actual average output is likely to be closer to be $8,174 a kilowatt (2007 dollars) for onshore
wind. Offshore wind costs more per unit of capacity, yet has a much higher capacity factor therefore I suspect its economics are similar. None of this
includes storage which is an attempt to make wind more reliable, nor does it include fossil fuel backups that are required with any form of wind.
Also, remember the windmills take up room. So although the technology progresses we may have to site them at unideal locations which drives up the
costs (e.g. transmission, low wind, offshore).
By comparison, Italy just ordered four Nuclear Reactors from AREVA. Each at 1650 megawatt at a cost of $6.45 billion dollars each, designed to last 60
years (possibly more). These four reactors will generate as much power as
every single windmill in the United States in 2008. The reactors are
designed to run at 92% capacity factor, therefore the actual cost per kilowatt of capacity is about $4300. That's not to say the reactors are
perfect, however. The type (EPR), had to have expensive modifications on the first two reactors getting built in France and Finland to ensure
containment vessel integrity in the case of a widebody airliner crash directly into the reactor (airliner full of fuel, also), and also to ensure the
reactor backup instrumentation was
completely independent from the normal instrumentation. One of the two first reactors is now over 50% over
budget and many, many years behind schedule. This is one of the dangers of building a very very expensive, very very large, and very very high output
reactor before it is certified by regulatory authorities, and it is also one of the dangers in building a brand new type of reactor. I suspect that
after the first four reactors a built (1 in France, 1 in Finland, 2 in China), most of the bugs, teething problems if you will, will be worked out,
hopefully allowing later projects like the ones in the UK, USA, & Italy to proceed on schedule and on cost. Areva expects to deliver 60
reactors of this type, or about 30% of the market till 2030.
By far the most successful of the generation 3+ reactor designs is the Westinghouse Electric ( 80% owned by Toshiba, 20% SHAW ) AP1000. China is
currently building about four of them at $2,000 per kilowatt hour, and wants to have 100 of these reactors operating (or under construction) by 2020.
At about 1250 megawatt of capacity each, you could probably run the entire nation of France on 100 of them with capacity to spare. The design is not
some cheap "Chinese" knockoff, but a state of the art design already certified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. About twelve of
them are planned for the United States (so far), two at a proposed Nuclear plant in Levy County, Florida at a cost of 14 billion dollars ($6000 a
kilowatt) (will open in mid-late next decade, closing down a coal plant nearby). As the US has not built a new Nuclear Plant in 20 years, it remains
to be seen if it will conform to budget expectations, although the reactor type is already licensed AND it is not a first of a kind so it will likely
not be as big of a disaster as the early EPR units.
Per unit of average /actual generating capacity Nuclear power will generally be cheaper than pretty much all forms of renewables, without any of its
problems. Nuclear also has
extremely low running costs as the majority of costs go to
maintenance, rather than maintenance and fuel. i.e. A 10% increase in the price of Uranium will only increase the cost of electricity by 0.5%.
However, Nuclear has some problems of its own, at the moment at least Nuclear Plants have not been constructed in the US in over a decade so there is
some uncertainty, and Nuclear plants are usually only available in very large sizes. E.G. It is much harder for a utility to put down $14 billion
dollars on an absolutely massive two gigawatt Nuclear plant, compared to a few windmills that are subsidized hugely, or some small natural gas plant
for example. This is set to change with smaller, modular, massed produced units like the B&W mPOWER, & Hyperion Power Module, and also greater loan
guarantees (think student loans). Other smaller problems include the incompetent NRC taking 4 -5 years to certify a new reactor design.
Spain have had wind turbines for years and only now the USA decides to 'give it go' of course there has to be a profit in it or it simply
won't work.
In 2008 wind generating
capacity in the United States totaled 25,170 megawatts (average of 23.5% capacity factor). Spain had 16,740 megawatts
of capacity. So while Spain may get a higher
proportion of its energy from wind, what you are saying is technically incorrect. Furthermore, it
would also be wise to pay attention to the prices of electricity in both of these countries. If I am not mistaken energy in the US is a few cents
cheaper than Spain...
Sure. Use it to run a couple of breeder reactors and regenerate about 45% of your used fuel. The rest is low level isotopes that can be used
for things like X-ray machines . You can cut the waste by over 85% The drawback is that the left over 15% is mostly Plutonium.
I am most familiar with the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.. aka Molten Salt Reactor. The LFTR will practically eliminate all plutonium and most of
the waste will last for only 400 years. From what I understand, another reactor known as the Integral Fast Reactor will eliminate the majority of the
waste that is fed into it, however it still has plutonium in the waste. The main issue with these reactors is simply a lack of experience with them
(Russians excluded, they have BN800 reactor), although they are
extremely promising.
Thanks.
More information on the limitations of renewables
in my thread,
here.
On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear.[5] On November 8th 2009
wind power production reached its all-time maximum of 11,564 MW; a few hours earlier it had reached the highest percentage of electricity production,
with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand.
At times, wind will generate lots of power. At other times it will not. In Spain, on average all the wind turbines combined ran at a power level of
4000 megawatts in 2009, providing about 13% of total power. It certainly is a big achievement, but am I impressed or surprised? No, it would take
about two and a half EPR reactors to generate as much power as
every single wind turbine in Spain.
You can view the power generation statistics and graphs in the Bonneville Power Administration website,
here. At the time of posting, wind had been doing quiet well (for
once).
[edit on 22/1/2010 by C0bzz]
the hip hop gangsters wouldn't go for it, they like their hair too much
Disrupting the natural order for our needs seems assinine. Anyway its not acid rain causing
it. 
Read the article I linked on my last post, before you assume anything. I'm tired of so called
environmentalists jumping half-cocked on some new fad to "save" the environment. Look at the ramifications of your actions before you put it into
place 
Good intentions do not guarantee good results! 
