Nukes Are Green, Nicholas Kristof, NY Times, Saturday, April 9, 2005

[Coastie for Truth]

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/opinion/09kristof.html

f there was one thing that used to be crystal clear to any environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the deadliest threat this planet faced. That's why Dick Gregory pledged at a huge anti-nuke demonstration in 1979 that he would eat no solid food until all nuclear plants in the U.S. were shut down.

<snip>

Nuclear power, in contrast with other sources, produces no greenhouse gases. So President Bush's overall environmental policy gives me the shivers, but he's right to push ahead for nuclear energy. There haven't been any successful orders for new nuclear plants since 1973, but several proposals for new plants are now moving ahead - and that's good for the world we live in.

Global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap.

<snip>

A sensible energy plan must encourage conservation - far more than Mr. Bush's plans do - and promote things like hybrid vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. But for now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn't contribute to global warming and that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid.

Is it safe? No, not entirely. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that, and there are also risks from terrorist attacks.

Then again, the world now has a half-century of experience with nuclear power plants, 440 of them around the world, and they have proved safer so far than the alternatives. America's biggest power source is now coal, which kills about 25,000 people a year through soot in the air.

To put it another way, nuclear energy seems much safer than our dependency on coal, which kills more than 60 people every day.

Moreover, nuclear technology has become far safer over the years. The future may belong to pebble-bed reactors, a new design that promises to be both highly efficient and incapable of a meltdown.

Radioactive wastes are a challenge. But burdening future generations with nuclear wastes in deep shafts is probably more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in which Manhattan is submerged under 20 feet of water.

Right now, the only significant source of electricity in the U.S. that does not involve carbon emissions is hydropower. But salmon runs have declined so much that we should be ripping out dams, not adding more.

<snip>

So it's time to welcome nuclear energy as green (though not to subsidize it with direct handouts, as the nuclear industry would like). Indeed, some environmentalists are already climbing onboard. For example, the National Commission on Energy Policy, a privately financed effort involving environmentalists, academics and industry representatives, issued a report in December that favors new nuclear plants.

<snip>

[Mr.Green93]

1. A lower U.S. standard of living

would solve most of the worlds energy problems.

[forgethell]

2. Better hope then

that we can hang onto the courts. Nobody will ever vote to lower their own standard of living. It's always the other fellow who has to pay. Look at that supreme hypocrite, Barbara Streisand, for an example.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. A lower standard of living

will be geometric--

a lower standard of living will motivate the demagogues to go to war for resources (and the citizenry to support the resource wars)


resource wars will actually further lower the standard of living


which will motivate the demagogues to go to war for a shrinking share of diminishing resources (and the citizenry to support the ongoing resource wars)


and the ongoing resource wars will actually even further lower the already low standard of living

An exponential decrease in living standards matching an exponential increase in popularly supported resource wars.

[Strelnikov_]

4. Always Get A Kick Out Of

these "global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years" and "petroleum demand is estimated to be 120 M bbl/dy in 2020" type statements.

I think nuke, wind, solar, biomass is, at best, going to maintain a 2000 level of energy supply. In other words, growth in these energy sources will at best just keep pace with the decline of petroleum and natural gas energy.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. One mod

"I think nuke, wind, solar, biomass is, at best, going to maintain a 2000 level of energy supply adjusted for growth in total energy consumption. In other words, growth in these energy sources will at best just keep pace with the sum total of the decline of petroleum and natural gas energy overall growth in energy consumption."

My own opinion is that nuke, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. will pick up the decline in fossil fuels plus the growth in total consumption. Don't forget - "growth" includes China, India, and the Third World.

[dcfirefighter]

6. At least the Chinese

are embracing nuclear power.

[NNadir]

7. It is encouraging that real thinking is making a rare appearance in our

media, but this won't go anywhere.

The United States is a third world country. We can't and won't think.

[phantom power]

13. Cheer up, It's not easy being green.

[jpak]

8. Kristof should write some articles on:

Mortality and morbidity among uranium miners - in the US and elsewhere (note: the US currently imports >90% of its annual uranium requirements).

The decommissioning and clean-up of US and foreign uranium mines - including the neocolonial mess that French uranium mines created in Niger and Gabon.

Worker health and safety at US UF6 production facilities (note: that should be singular as only one UF6 conversion facility is currently operating in the US - it was recently reopened after a fire and off-site release of highly toxic UF6).

Mortality and morbidity among US uranium enrichment plant workers and the status of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

On- and off-site toxic and radiological contamination at US uranium enrichment plants.

The (massive) on-going release of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons from US uranium enrichment plants.

Emissions from coal-fired power plants grandfathered under the Clean Air act that supply(ied) power to US uranium enrichment facilities.

Groundwater contamination at the now-defunct West Valley (NY) commercial reprocessing plant.

and some articles on the other "green" ($$$$$$$).

$450 million (tax dollars) to decommission a single uranium mine near Moab Utah...and what was the dollar value of uranium produced at this mine????

The millions of $$$ and Euros currently earmarked by the World Bank to decommission uranium mines in Africa and South America.

The financial fiasco that is/was the US Uranium Enrichment Corporation (more millions in tax dollars for corporate bailouts).

The ~$4 billion (taxpayer) price tag to dispose of the 750,000 metric tons of depleted UF6 accumulated at US U-enrichment plants.

The billion dollar cost of the Three Mile Island accident.

The $2.25 billion Washington Public Power Supply System financial nuclear disaster (Whooops!!!).

The $14 billion in debt acquired by TVA when it "deferred" its foolishly ambitious nuclear power program.

The $24 billion that will be required to decommission currently operating US reactors - will the money be there when they are shut down??? (clue: probably not).

The shocking inability of the Nuclear Waste Fund to finance the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain waste repository (taxpayers price tag $30 billion and growing).

The $4-8 billion (tax dollars) that will be required to stabilize and clean-up the West Valley reprocessing plant (which produced ~$20 million worth of Pu during its operation).

and finally...

Kristof should do an in-depth expose' of the Bush administration's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative (billions in direct subsidies for new nuclear power plants). A good deal for America??? Nope - but a really great deal for the Nuclear Lobby and Friends of Cheney...

Next year will mark the 50th anniversary of commercial nuclear power in the US. After a half century of operating experience, the "industry" will require tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to build new nuclear power plants.

Is there something wrong with this picture????

Nuclear power is not as "green" as Kristof would have us believe and is dependent on "gobs 'o green" from taxpayers to prevent the collapse of the entire scheme.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. And what makes you think fossil fuel is NOT subsidized?

1. We are subsidizing the petroleum industry with 1500 American lives in Iraq. This is clearly blood for oil.

2. As to coal -- well, I grew up in that "coal field" where Appalachia bumps up against the Rust Belt -- and I-70 cuts across the "coal field" from Somerset PA through Southwestern Pennsylvania and the West Virginia Panhandle and the Ohio Valley to Cinci.

My Dad was born near Donora PA -- http://www.docheritage.state.pa.us/documents/donora.asp and http://www.westol.com/~shawley/dhs/smog.pdf and http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/Rachel_Carson/dead20.htm, worked above USSteel's "Clairton Works" coke oven plant http://www.ussteel.com/corp/facilities/clairton.htm. Dad recently died of cancer.

I grew up on a hillside overlooking the USSteel Homestead Works in Pittsburgh's Greenfield section before smoke control - I had every manner of upper respiratory illness as a kid.

Coal fired plants are green house gas generators. Coal is not clean.

Those of us who grew up in the "Coal Patch" subsidize coal fired plants with our bodies.

[NNadir]

10. Yeah right.

First we learn about how all energy except nuclear energy has no risk and now we learn that all energy except nuclear energy is free.

Clearly the world that is committing to nuclear expansion rapidly doesn't buy the hallucinatory numbers coming off ratical.org. This is probably on the grounds that the people on that august website of radiation paranoids can't add and subtract or make comparisons or apparently even think.

We hear from our religious anti-nuclear anti-envrionmental activists about 450 million dollars spent on a uranium mine, but not a peep, financial or otherwise about 200 billion spent on Iraq. And of course, there is the matter of coal mines, so expensive to clean up that it is impossible for an outlay of entire gross national product to even imagine cleaning it up. So we just don't do a fucking thing. We put it in your lungs, and in your water and it's OK. Why? Because it's not that scary nuclear stuff...

How immoral. How indifferent. How weak.

What's wrong with the picture? Not much, except some people are either blind or lack perception or, as more likely, are simply engaged in religious delusions.

How pathetic.

[jpak]

11. How fucking stupid!! LOL!!!!!!

While anti-solar anti-environmentalist pro-nucular religious nut-jobs can only offer hysterical name-calling, bizarre logic, pseudoscience Fairy Tales and hot air to support their arguments, the global PV industry is growing by Leaps and Bounds...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=20124

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12.htm

http://www.solarcentury.co.uk/news/newsitem.jsp?newsid=388

And....while the US imports virtually everything it uses (and that includes uranium) the US actually exports PV modules to the (exponentially growing) global PV market.

In contrast, there hasn't been a new order for a new nuclear power plant in the US for over 3 decades.

And...after more than half a century of government subsidies, the US nuclear fuel cycle is in complete disarray and the costs of decommissioning defunct uranium mines, defunct uranium mills, defunct uranium conversion plants, defunct uranium enrichment plants, defunct nuclear power plants, defunct commercial reprocessing plants and disposing of depleted UF6 and spent fuel are skyrocketing.

I bet you didn't know that the cost of PV electricity is dropping by ~5% per year????

Didn't think so.

LOL!!!

[phantom power]

12. Very hard to run an electric grid on PV.

You only get to generate power in the daytime. And it's quite dependent on weather, location, etc.

So, if you're going to seriously talk about PV public-utility level, you have to talk about storing vast, vast amounts of electric energy. The energy storage you'd need would have a huge environmental cost, regardless of how you did it.

And PV cells themselves involve toxic compounds, and manufacturing them produces toxic waste. So far, that waste has been negligible, but only because the amoung of PV we've manufactured has also been negligible. If/when we ever start manufacturing enough to make a real difference, we'll start seeing significant environmental issues.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Toxic waste

You posted

"And PV cells themselves involve toxic compounds, and manufacturing them produces toxic waste. So far, that waste has been negligible, but only because the amount of PV we've manufactured has also been negligible. If/when we ever start manufacturing enough to make a real difference, we'll start seeing significant environmental issues.'

I worked in a PV fab for seven years. There is more toxic waste in semiconductor wafers or printed circuit boards.

Most of the "toxic waste" comes from the "photo mask" process - including the mask, the developers, and the solvents -- mostly halogenated hydrocarbons. Per square unit - a PV cell or a flat panel display requires only about 10% of the "photo" as semiconductor wafers or printed circuit boards.

As to epitaxy (including doping, circuitization, plating, etching, etc) -- no comparison. The amounts of toxic dopants are below the ppm levels.

[phantom power]

19. Is that because they are simpler devices?

[Coastie for Truth]

21. If you look at a "cross sectional view" or "cut away view"

of a photovoltaic cell "wafer" - and of a processor or memory "wafer" before it is diced into individual chips-- you will see that with all of the n and n- and p and p+ and gate oxide layers, and clock and source and drain and gate and control lines -- the processor or memory "wafer" has about ten times more process steps then a PV cell or flat panel display.

Much simpler -- looking vertically down into the device (or in cross section or cutaway) -- and each sequential "layer" involves epitaxy and plating and etching and depositing and imaging and developing and removing photoresist. And, it's really all of those "photoresist" steps that create the toxicity and environmental problems.

[jpak]

22. Until PV capacity (or other intermittent sources) comprises 20-30%

of total grid generating capacity, no storage is necessary.

Renewable power sources can be used to produce hydrogen which can be used in fuel cells to produce juice 24/7/365.

These systems (electrolyzers, storage tanks and fuel cells) can be scaled and distributed throughout the grid to meet whatever demand is required (no lead-acid batteries needed).

Low pressure tanks can be used to store hydrogen produced on-site. No hydride storage required. (note: the US natural gas industry produces and distributes ~19 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 19 billion gallons of propane each year. Large-scale storage and distribution of hydrogen in low pressure tanks is a common practice in the petrochemical and food industries as well - no rocket science needed here to handle large-scale H2 production).

and the technology is here today....

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/generationcenter.html

The Schatz Center PV/H2 fuel cell system ran 24/7/365 without human intervention for 7 years before it was upgraded in 2001...

http://www.azsolarcenter.com/calendar/expanded/sa-4-01-396.html

That's 100% system availability at 100% capacity for 7 years - no nuclear reactor can beat that performance.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Humboldt is in the greenest part of CA

just beautiful. (That's why the fuel cell and PV folks from Berkeley and UC Davis plan their conferences at HSU and the Schatz Center).

[hunter]

25. I don't think H2 energy storage will be economical.

Currently natural gas is used to make H₂ as a chemical feedstock, and also as a fuel for gas turbine "peaking" power plants.

In any situation where it is too expensive to use natural gas as a fuel for peaking power plants, H₂ becomes too valuable to use in fuel cells. It is most likely that any H₂made by electrolysis during periods of excess generating capacity will be used as a feedstock to manufacture chemicals.

Instead of elaborate power storage schemes, the electric power network will become "smart." Loads will be matched to the generating capacity.

[jpak]

29. Distributed electrolyzer/storage tank/fuel cell systems

would do just that - match loads with generating capacity.

H2 electrolyzers are extremely efficient (~80%) and can rapidly charge an on-site tank with H2.

H2 fuel cells are nearly as efficient as electrolyzers in converting H2 into juice (theoretically 80-85%, currently ~60% and climbing) and can respond rapidly to changes in load demand.

Storage tanks would be sized to maintain enough H2 to buffer mis-matches between load demand and grid generation. As H2 production and consumption would be dynamic, the size of the the tanks would not have to be massive. A storage tank the size of a typical residential propane tank (the larger ones - not the stove-sized tanks) would probably all that would be needed for a household 2-4 kWe fuel cell system.

Note: ehe Cheownki (ME) hydrogen fuel cell demonstration project will use standard-sized welding gas bottles to provide a 4 day storage capacity for the system.

http://www.chewonkih2.org/public/pressrelease_2004Jun22.shtml

http://www.chewonkih2.org/pressdocs/timesrecord_2004Apr30.shtml

It will also use novel electolyzers to produce high pressure H2 without the need for compressors...

http://www.avalence.com/news/default.asp

"Waste" heat from the fuel cells could also be used for space and hot water (pre-)heating which would increase total system efficiency dramatically.

While all these components are available off-the-shelf today, they are not currently mass produced and they are still pretty pricey.

When (not if) they are produced on a large scale basis, their cost will drop like a rock.

[hunter]

30. You missed my point.

Peak power is currently provided by natural gas turbines in most places whenever hydroelectric peaking capacity is exceeded.

Natural gas is also the primary source of hydrogen for the chemical industry, including the production of liquid transportation fuels.

There is a large capital cost for facilities that make hydrogen, store it, and then turn it back into electricity.

If natural gas is too valuable to use as an energy source for peak power, than hydrogen has an even greater value as a chemical feedstock.

For this reason stored hydrogen will not be used to generate peak power in large scale electric power networks. Any hydrogen generated during periods of excess electric generating capacity will be used by the chemical industry.

This assumes, of course, that we are trying to minimize our use of coal. In the normal course of my investigations I like to believe that various promoters of "alternative energy" are not beholden to the coal or petroleum industries.

[jpak]

31. In the Sunbelt, PV could displace a lot (most?) of NG peaking capacity

as air conditioning peak loads generally follow daily and seasonal insolation patterns. The same is true for Rustbelt AC loads.

I think you missed my point - distributed hydrogen production and consumption sited near load demands (homes, businesses, etc.) would preclude its use by the petrochemical industry.

The relatively small volumes of stored hydrogen required would be used during generally off-peak periods (i.e., at night and during inclement weather).

Furthermore, this hydrogen would be produced from the hydrolysis of water (and not from the reformation of natural gas).

That's the point I was trying to make....

In a post-petroleum economy, will there even be a petrochemical industry???

[hunter]

33. If the solar house is connected to the grid, why have local H2 storage?

"Surplus" solar generated electricity goes directly onto the electricity network to be used elsewhere. There is no reason to store the energy.

Assuming we remain a high-technology society, there will always be a demand for what we now regard as "petrochemicals." The feedstocks to make these does not need to be oil, coal or natural gas.

In areas not served by large electric power networks, local hydrogen storage may prove to be useful. In areas that are served by the electric power network, hydrogen and oxygen can be generated at any point on the network, most likely at the industrial sites where these gasses would be used.

It is very possible that non-petroleum dervied synthetic fuels made elsewhere (for example, DME, which is a bottled gas very much like propane) would be more economical to use than locally generated hydrogen. As it is now, there are many small households and communities not connected to the electric power network which are powered by a combination of solar power and bottled gas. But this is certainly not an optimum energy supply configuration for the large urban areas where most people live and work.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. I worked in a PV fab for seven years

PV is probably ready for "distributed generation" and "co-generation" duty in a (single family) residential situation, office parks, retail strip malls.

I said "a (single family) residential situation" because you need about 1000 square feet to generate most of a family's needs. The real problem is "time shifting" - you generate most of the electricity during daylight hours -- when everybody is at work or school --- and use it in the evening.

That probably drives you to batteries. Although one PV entrepreneur I know lives in the hilly areas bounding the Si Valley. He had put in decorative fish ponds -- pumps water up during the day with the PV generated electricity, runs it over a hydro generator in the evening. Not hyper efficient -- but it is neat engineering --- and he isn't paying Pacific Gas and Electric.

[phantom power]

18. Yes, but how does that scale to 300 million people?

I think a grid-tied PV setup works well in the southwest (if you can afford it), since it provides a nice supplement during peak load hours.

But batteries... All those batteries, for millions of households. Lots of lead and acid to dispose of. And it adds to the expense. People are starting to make fly-wheels, which should involve fewer toxins, but they aren't cheap either.

I suppose you could recycle the batteries. We have so much infrastructure to set up, no matter which directions we take.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Pb Sulfate Batteries Are So 19th Century

This is the 21st Century.

You asked:

"But batteries... All those batteries, for millions of households. Lots of lead and acid to dispose of. And it adds to the expense. People are starting to make fly-wheels, which should involve fewer toxins, but they aren't cheap either."

Pb Acid batteries are the technology of the 19th century. For PV time shifting service I would recommend either Ni-MH or the latest generation Li ion.

You suggested:

"People are starting to make fly-wheels, which should involve fewer toxins, but they aren't cheap either."

That's - from a college mechanical engineering textbook perspective - what my friend did with the terraced ponds. Really quite attractive.

You also asked:

"I suppose you could recycle the batteries. We have so much infrastructure to set up, no matter which directions we take."

In point of fact, that is what is done - world wide - with Pb acid "automotive" batteries. And, in Europe it is the norm (reinforced by "trade in" laws and "deposits") on Li ion, Ni-MH, and (where they are still legal) Ni-Cd.

The real issue still remain putting $15K +/- for a 2 KW PV unit on a residential mortgage.

[hunter]

24. I don't think storage has to be a significant problem...

In a "smart" power network, sophisticated electric load management might reduce the need for storage to zero.

In any case, electric power is never going to come from any single source such as solar, wind, or nuclear. There will always be a wide variety of generating sources on any large scale power network.

It has become our habit to think of the power network as having some "base load" which we meet with very large continuously running power plants (such as nuclear or coal fired power plants) and some peak load that we meet with gas turbines and other easily cycled power plants.

But with modern sophisticated control systems it is possible to manage the load to meet whatever generating capacity happens to be available.

Many devices that use electric power do not have a linear relationship between their capital costs and capacity. A two horsepower pump does not cost twice as much as a one horsepower pump. A two horsepower compressor does not cost twice as much as a one horsepower compressor. A two thousand gallon tank does not cost twice as much as a one thousand gallon tank.

Imagine an industrial process where a one horsepower pump runs continuously to supply a one thousand gallon tank. Now imagine that same industrial process where a two horsepower pump supplys a two thousand gallon tank. The two horsepower pump does not need to run continuously. It's operation can be controlled by a signal from the power network.

For household use, refrigerators and freezers might be built that only require power six hours a day. These would be switched on and off by a signal from the power network. (This is already done in some places for air-conditioning. You get a discount on your electricity if you allow the electric company to control your air conditioner.)

Mass-produced control systems designed for easy incorporation into various energy consuming devices might be a much better investment than any huge capital intensive and environmentally destructive energy storage system such as batteries or pumped storage.

When you are designing a solar power system for an off-the-grid household, the first thing you notice is that tanks and pumps are inexpensive compared to batteries. It usually doesn't make sense to use batteries to power the well pump. In conventional well systems the pump is controlled by a float switch in the water tank. In a solar powered system the tank refills whenever the sun is shining.

On a much larger scale, our entire electric power system could be built this way. When our generating systems are all running at full capacity, in other words "when the sun is shining," all our lights will be on, and our air conditioners will be running. At less-than-full generating capacity loads will gradually shut down. Non-critical loads such as decorative lighting and air conditioners set below eighty would shut down first, and critical loads such as hospitals would shut down last.

[phantom power]

26. The author would probably call this "organizational hubris."

It might work, but it seems unlikely that people could get their act together sufficiently to implement it.

Assuming you could even get over the ideological humps. Imagine telling a typical American that you want to install controls on all their appliances, so that some of them shut down when the Grid Authority says they have to.

oops, I'm crossing threads. "organizational hubris" comes from here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x119227

[Coastie for Truth]

27. You can do it IF

Carrot

1. You give a "big" discount for "interruptible" customers.

2. You give a "big discount" for "off peak use"

Stick

1. You charge a "big premium" for non-interruptible above a "base usage"

2. You charge a "big premium" for "peak hour" use above a "base usage"

And, to apply a real stick - a still higher premium during "emergencies."

A lot of electric companies now do some of these.

Also -- the utility should pay some kind of a "premium" when it buys co-generated power from its customers. This should apply to big industrial customers, small "mom and pop business" customers AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS

[hunter]

28. Such controls could be invisible to the consumer...

You buy an "energy star" refrigerator at Sears, you plug it in, and it keeps your food cold. You are happy.

Larger institutions will happily adopt controls that save them money. Target and WalMart would rather dim the lights and turn up their thermostats than suffer a "rolling blackout."

[NNadir]

35. Really? Why are you so worked up then?

"I bet you didn't know that the cost of PV electricity is dropping by ~5% per year????

Didn't think so."

Really? How much capacity is being built? If solar power is so wonderful and so successful why is anyone anywhere even saying the word "nuclear?" To scare you out of your radiation paranoid pants?

I know that in the present company mathematics and reality have no power, because both require thinking. Knowing how completely hopeless it is, I'll throw some in anyway: If something is 99% more than I can afford and it drops by 5%, well what then? I still can't afford it. (Smacks self in forehead...) Duh! In fact, if something I can't afford by 99% falls 5% every year for 20 years it is still 99%*(0.95)^20 = 35% more than I can afford.

Big fucking deal. If solar power was a real solution, I very much doubt that there would be any problem at all, now would there? Now, complete idiots think that all we have to is wait for solar power to be only 35% too expensive, and everything will be OK. These morons seem to believe that global climate change is something that might happen. The rest of us, who don't have some religious balderdash to tote around to show exactly how uninformed and morally pixilated we are, know that global climate change is happening NOW.

Can you show that the new installed peak, middle of the day, when the sun is out new "affordable" solar capacity is even 5% of the new nuclear capacity being installed on the planet?

You can't?

I didn't think so.

Religious thinking is so pathetic. It's immoral too, but the "pathetic" part outweighs the "immoral" part. It's like trying to discuss molecular biology with a creationist. The wiggling gets hilarious after a while.

[jpak]

39. Global PV production is expected to exceed 1.1 GW in 2005

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=20124

Global electrical generating capacity in 2002 was 3464 GW

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electric.html#IntlCapacity

So new PV capacity in 2005 will represent ~0.03% of total global generating capacity.

Global PV production is growing exponentially at ~40% per year and is expected to grow to 4.3 GW per year by 2020. Total global installed PV capacity is also expected to exceed 200 GW by 2020..

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12.htm
http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/techupdates.html

Global installed wind capacity is currently 49 GW and is expected to grow to ~500 GW by 2020.

http://www.windustry.com/basics/01-introduction.htm

In contrast, new global nuclear capacity increased by 2.2 GW per year from 2000 - 2005 or ~0.06% of global generating capacity in 2005.

Global nuclear capacity will peak at ~364 GW in 2010 and decline to 349 GW by 2020.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/gencap.html

On balance:

Global installed PV capacity will grow from the current 3.5 GW to ~200 GW by 2020.

Global installed wind turbine capacity will grow from ~50 to ~500 GW between 2005 and 2020.

Global nuclear capacity will experience a net decrease of 15 GW between 2005 and 2020.

Global PV and Wind capacity in 2020 (~700 GW) will exceed global nuclear generating capacity (350 GW) by a factor of 2.

Doesn't look like the world is "clearly going nuclear" to me...

[hunter]

40. The nuclear forecast page you link to is quite remarkable.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/gencap.html

Basically nuclear generating capacity in North America, Western Europe, and the former Soviet Union declines as older nuclear plants are taken offline, and no new nuclear plants are built.

Nuclear generating capacity in Asia, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa increases.

The basic assumption of this "forecast" is that the so-called Western cultures will not build new nuclear power plants except in Central and South America. This chart is merely a quantification of that assumption. I could poll some random people around the world about the safety of nuclear power plants and come up with numbers that would be just as meaningless towards any discussions about the actual safety of nuclear power plants.

In any case, 2020 is less than 15 years from now. It's sort of sad when we think of this very short time span as "long term" planning.

[jpak]

41. Can't afford PV??? You can in New Jersey

http://www.akeena.net/solar_energy_benefits/incentive_programsnj.html

http://www.powerlight.com/newjersey/index.shtml

For PV systems up to 10 kW, homeowners receive a rebate of $5.50 per AC watt up to 70% of the cost of the system.

(note: the rebates are not funded by taxes)

The net cost of a 2 kW grid intertie system with an up front cost of $17k is ~$5000 - and that doesn't include any profit from electricity sold to the grid.

What would the monthly payments be for a 5-year $5000 loan??? ~$100 a month???

Can't afford a $5000 loan????

Dude - I feel your pain...

[jpak]

42. To answer the question...

"Can you show that the new installed peak, middle of the day, when the sun is out new "affordable" solar capacity is even 5% of the new nuclear capacity being installed on the planet?"

Global annual PV production (1.1 GW per year in 2005) is equivalent to 50% of annual new nuclear capacity (2.2 GW per year) installed over the period 2000-2005.

That's 50% - not "even 5% of the new nuclear capacity being installed on the planet".

Just wanted to make that clear....

[struggle4progress]

16. I don't doubt that PM10 kills at least 25K annually. But ...

... I doubt if any meaningful fraction of the deaths could be sufficiently established in court to yield damage awards. Various posters in this thread are known for arguing that, since none of the deaths sometimes attributed to nuclear power could be "proven," we cannot count those deaths, which seems to me a bizarre and intellectually indefensible position.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Come On Over To Coal Mining Country

In South Western Pennsylvania, West-by God-Virginia, Kentucky, and Southern Ohio, especially those coal mining towns by the tipple and by the generators.

I don't mean University Presbyterian Hosp in Pittsburgh, try some of the Community Hospitals down in the lower Monongahela Valley.

(I started in Environmental Engineering there - sheesh; the steel mill was a major step up --- and nuclear power was a major step up from the Steel Mill).

[struggle4progress]

32. I'll read this as a statement that workers' health and safety issues ...

... concern you and look forward to your future posts on that subject.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. In my steel worker's neighborhood

in the Mon Valley, every block had an amputee named "Stumpy." It's part of my AFL-CIO and Blue Collar - Lunch Bucket Democratic background in the unionized, factory "Rust Belt."

[struggle4progress]

36. But upon hearing you refer to amputees as "Stumpy," I see that perhaps ...

... I have been overly-optimistic ... :evilfrown:

[dcfirefighter]

37. Read the post

He did not refer to amputees as 'stumpy'. He referred to amputees who went by the nickname 'stumpy'. There is a distinct and important difference. I doubt the men in question share your disdain for the nickname, though I'm quite sure they'd rather have their limb back.

Who'd work a job where people lost limbs, if there were another viable alternative?

[Coastie for Truth]

38. I am in my 60's

in the "Blue Collar" ethnic neighborhoods around the steel mills and auto factors and foundries, etc. of my youth, that's the way people talked. Lives were shorter and harder. That was the way it was.

Working folks were mangled and maimed and killed. There was no OSHA, no EPA. I PM'd you about industrial exposure to selenium. That was the norm -- chemical plant and petroleum refinery workers died young.

Asbestos surrounded all hot water and steam heat pipes.

You young'ns who live in an asbestos free world with OSHA and EPA and the benefits of the trade union movement. Somebody had to pay for it.

That's the difference between blue collar workin folk Democrats and PC noblesse oblige limousine liberals from suburbia.

[struggle4progress]

43. You're rather more optimistic about OSHA than I am. Workplace ...

... amputations are still quite common:

... During the period 1992-99, there were on average more than 21 fatal and more than 11,000 nonfatal workplace amputations annually ... http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/sh20030114ar01p1.htm

And working folk are still mangled and maimed and killed, in significant numbers.

More could be said. But I'll refrain from further digression from the thread topic ...