Who gave renewable energy and natural health to the left?

[BridgeRunner]

And, even beyond their economic shortcomings, there is the issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.

And pollution from coal-fired plants isn't?  At least I wouldn't have to inhale the nuclear waste.  

[old school]

40K is a rip off for a 2000 square foot house. There are a few contractors around here who price like that and as you may have guessed they are pretty lonely. You also have to be pretty active on your research before you buy. The technology is changing pretty rapidly these days and you don't want to be the sucker who buys up the old technology some warehouse is trying to get rid of.

The relevant factors in the cost of a solar electrical system are the power output needed and the amount of sun the location gets.  The size of the house doesn't matter at all.  So how is it that yo can say that $40k for a 2000 SF house is a ripoff?

There was an article in the newspaper in the winter about a couple in South Florida who did an install on their winter home in Sarasota. It is a grid tie system. They actually get checks from Florida Power for the energy they sell back to the grid. They also expect a payback period of about 15 years.

Most of the country isn't located in sunny south Florida.  As I said earlier, solar generally doesn't work except in the south.

The technology that I find really exciting is solar panel shingles. They actually replace regular shingle in a similar mounting fashion. However, they are not nearly as efficient as the silicon panels. Alot of the new nano technology advances may solve that problem soon.

Solar is definately ready now and a pretty good return on investment if you do the research and negotiate a competitive price. However, I do agree that it will be even more impressive in another 10 years.

Except in limited, specific circumstances, solar doesn't work worth a darn.  No amount of research or negotiating will get more sun to fall on my home in Indiana.  Heck, we don't have any sunny days for 3 months out of the year.

Technology may some day advance to the point where the northern two thirds of the country can get meaningful amounts of power from solar panels.  The cells need to become much more efficient, and they need to become much less expensive.  The new thin film and roll printing technologies look promising, but we just are there yet. 

Solar works in specific, isolated circumstances, but it absolutely isn't ready for the mainstream today.

I think the technology you are talking about is few years behind what is actually available now. Also, you can easily estimate the average household energy usage based on square footage. The real energy hog in most homes is the heating and/or air conditioning. Weather extemes can change the formula a lot. But, for the most part, it is pretty standard.

Your great lakes weather is definately not as good as Florida for Solar Electric. However, you do have a lot of good wind up there for turbines. You could use a grid tie inverter hooked up to a couple good turbines and get a good return on investment.

For the record, I have no problem with oil companies or coal mines. They supply it and we buy it. It doesn't get any better than that. I have a problem with them suppressing new technology. But hey, they are oil companies protecting their business model. It is what you should expect from them. My goal is to wake people up.

I want to inspire people to be suspicious of any entity in a position of power. Be it governement or the powerfully wealthy. There is a sentiment on this forum that you have to choose sides between big governement and big business. I say be suspicious and skeptical of both. Neither one of them neccessarily are acting in the individual americans best interest.

[old school]

And pollution from coal-fired plants isn't?  At least I wouldn't have to inhale the nuclear waste.  

There you go. That is the difference between what you believe and what I believe. Your statement tells me that you think you will never have to deal with nuclear waste. You think it will never effect you so you don't care. Bury it someone elses state or at least out of your site and you are good to go.

[BridgeRunner]

There you go. That is the difference between what you believe and what I believe. Your statement tells me that you think you will never have to deal with nuclear waste. You think it will never effect you so you don't care. Bury it someone elses state or at least out of your site and you are good to go.

Nope. 

I think it will never affect me as much as pollution from coal fired plants affects me and many other people. 

You call nuclear power "crapping where you live".  Sorry, but waste is a by-product of life.  Until the turbines are all in place, and the desert is carpeted with solar panels, there's gonna be waste.  And even then, there will be other kinds of waste. 

Currently, there are concrete vaults of nuclear waste in temporary storage less than 200 miles away from where I sit.  That is fine with me.  I would prefer the slight chance of a storage accident and giving up permanently the necessary space for permanent storage over the certainty of ever increasing rates of respiratory problems.

I would rather have a sealed vault of nuclear waste in my backyard than live next door to a coal-fired power plant.  However, my city needs more power, and so a new coal plant is going in next year.  I can hardly wait.

[old school]

Ask and you shall receive.

[Firethorn]

Ask and you shall receive.

Can I please have a nuclear reactor built to replace the coal one currently spewing mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, uranium, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, etc...  into the air I breath?

Like Bridewalker said, at least the waste from a nuke plant is contained.

Not one single american nuclear powerplant in history has ever paid for itself.

As far as I knew, all of the 100 or so currently operating plants paid for themselves a long time ago.  Yes, there were some that rather spectacularly didn't - in a time when construction could be shut down by a letter written by a high school dropout. 

They are a fascinating technology but they are far from practical.

The same could be said of Solar - and to a lesser extend wind.  Hint:  Try stripping out all the subsidization and see what your install costs for a solar system go up to and whether it still pays itself off.  I spend $50-$100/month on electricity.  More in the winter.  That's $900/year in electricity.  If the solar system costs $25k, at 7.5% and 40 years my monthly cost to pay the loan off is $164.52.  Costing me nearly $100/month!

Before I'd buy that $25k system you'd have to guarantee that it'd work for 40 years, at no more than 2% interest.  Heck, I could do better putting the $25k into the bank, and pay the electricity bill off the interest.  Then buy solar panels or a wind turbine if it ever makes sense.

issue of the radio active waste. There is just no rational argument for the production of nuclear waste. There is just no way to get rid of it. It is the ultimate case of crapping where you live.

Hmmm...  How about 'less polluting than coal!'.  Getting rid of it:  Bury it for 10k years.  Unlike Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, or the rest, it'll be significantly less dangerous then.

Or you know, call it by it's alternate name:  'Fuel'.  What we're calling 'nuclear waste' right now is still 90% fuel.

The remaining isotopes have shorter halflifes - meaning storage doesn't have to last nearly as long.  So, between reprocessing reducing your true 'waste' to 10% of it's previous volume(extending Yucca 10X), and the shortened halflife, most of the problem is gone.  That's without getting into some of the new techs that are promising to be able to artificially accelerate the decomposition - I think it was called electron bombardment.  Bonus:  Turns even the remaining waste into fuel.

You've never seen a coal ash tail, have you?

[old school]

$50-$100/month on electricity.  More in the winter.  That's $900/year in electricity.  If the solar system costs $25k, at 7.5% and 40 years my monthly cost to pay the loan off is $164.52.  Costing me nearly $100/month

If that is all the electricity you are using, you can get by with a smaller system.

As far as government subsidising energy goes. Have a look the funding and subsidies for those Nuclear plants you mention. Also Nuclear plants might be closer to economically feasible if done completely by the private sector, but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.

Here is a good article about feasibility in general:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf

Here is one example of a corporate welfare Nuclear Powerplant disasters:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.18.96/nuclear-9628.html

[Firethorn]

If that is all the electricity you are using, you can get by with a smaller system.

Not likely.

1:  I'm in North Dakota
2:  I'm currently paying 8 cents or so per kwh. 

I've characterized it before as 'I'm going to wait until they've installed solar in 90% of the homes south of the Mason-Dixon line'.

Heck, going by a study done by a english economist - it'd be more economical for me to buy solar power from Nevada.  At least that way I'd get power during the winter.

I have looked at a wind turbine - but it'd be better for the whole town to go with it.  Bigger turbines are cheaper per kwh.

As far as government subsidising energy goes. Have a look the funding and subsidies for those Nuclear plants you mention. Also Nuclear plants might be closer to economically feasible if done completely by the private sector, but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.

Sure, why not

Per Megawatt hour:
Solar: $24.34
Wind $23.37
'Clean' Coal: $29.81
Nuclear: $1.59
Hydro: $.67
Coal: $.44
NG: $.25

Let's see.  Nuclear power receives about a fifteenth of what solar and wind does.  About double of Hydro.

Here is a good article about feasibility in general:
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf

Nice worst case scenario 'factsheet'
I mean construction costs assume the boondongles of the 70's occur, not that other countries, such as Canada, manage to build nuclear plants much cheaper.  Like $2k per kilowatt.

Here is one example of a corporate welfare Nuclear Powerplant disasters:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.18.96/nuclear-9628.html

Yes, corporate screwups.  Let the electric company go bankrupt, have somebody else step in to provide power.  On a side note, how badly can you design a website?  I have a widescreen lcd now, the article was restricted to a fifth of my screen width.

Germany Subsidizes solar $.74 per kwh.

[Nick1911]

but it is just not possible because of the tremendous safety threat that they represent to the public.

Design has gotten better since the 70's.

Pretty interesting info Firethorn.

[old school]

Nuclear power receives about a fifteenth of what solar and wind does.

Looks like congress got that one right.....