When a plane crashes, there's a fireball, there's a mess, and then it goes away.
When a nuclear reactor burns, there's a mess, and then it stays there basically forvever.
I'll give you $10,000 to spend 1 month on the site where the Chernobyl reactor was.
That kind of permanent destruction - the lethality that just does not fade - is unlike anything else man has created.
And while burning cola releases some radiation, it's not the high rad/hard hitting stuff we get from a water cooled fission reactor.
Helium Cooled pebblebed reactors? Well now you're making sense.

There has not been a photovoltaic ("solar") cell yet produced that will return more energy in its lifetime than it cost to produce the cell. Think of them as long lasting non-rechargeable batteries - best utilized off grid, e.g., space ships (near earth), remote cabins, etc. When using photovoltaic cells, one is really just moving the cell production energy from the manufaturing plant to somewhere else in a small semiconductor package.

Who among us would give up a significant portion of his/her daily energy use? Why, think of the watts you're using just reading this! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Unless we figure out a way to reduce the human population, it's up to technology and energy to keep the species going. The old "primative" ways aren't up to the task, and in many ways they were at least as destructive, probably more so per capita, than today's more "advanced" techniques.

Therefore, I conlcude, we need to deliver more, reliable, energy at less environmental cost.

/Neal

This is a common myth about solar panels. See here.

The last word I read about solar cells from Australia was about some sort of paint like substance used to coat plain glass with connections to the substance that created electricity from exposure to the sun. To the best of my recollection or the article, the process does not give as an efficient production of electricity as other solar cells, but its production costs are a whole lot cheaper. The article was many years ago, and I am willing to bet there are newer possibilities on the horizon.

Bountyhunter

Hurray! We're saved!!!

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks Groo,
I was beginning to wonder where some of the statements poo-pooing solar/wind/hydro were coming from, but didn't have a "documented" arguement. I'm just a layman, but it doesn't take a P.H.D.* to recognize that the only safe, sane, satisfactory answer to power supply/consumption is a combination of eco-friendly production (sorry, but to me that means NO nukes,coal,gas,etc.) and better/smarter use of the power produced (you flashlight folks, c'mon, get on the band-wagon, L.E.D.s vs. "old fashioned" bulbs is a perfect example).

As I've already stated, I'm just one of the common folk, but it's pretty clear to me, that as long as there's a higher profit in burning coal/gas, or using nuclear power to turn the generators at the power plants, the powers that be don't give a flying hoot about ten years down the line, let alone a hundred.

Troy

*... Piled Higher and Deeper... just couldn't resist.

"However, it should be noted that the above payback periods assume that the modules are always operated at their maximum power points [5], as with a maximum power point tracker."

And neglects the power reqired to constantly re-aim the cell(s). And apparently doesn't take into account degradation of cell efficiency over time (~1%/year), to name just a couple of criticisms via the referenced summary.

So maybe PV is close to having a net lifetime energy surplus. I do not doubt that it will someday (technology good). But for quite a while PV will be substantially more expensive than "mass produced" electricity, even accounting for distribution losses. Especially when considering small, distribued installations. Not amoritizing all of the other costs (brackets, tracking systems, inverters, grid interties and/or batteries) over a large customer base really drives the kWh cost up.

NealO:

You do not mention higher costs of manufactured power to consumers each year and the "single source monopoly" status of centralized power. If you believe the current crap about increased suceptability and danger from unAmerican terrorists and factor in natures wrath, centralized power production is less desirable.

The more localized power produced by whatever means, will insure lower price increases from fear of competition.

Bountyhunter

TESTIFY!!! AMEN BROTHER,... my coworkers and I are currently more than just a little concerned about Exelon buying out all their smaller competitors... fewer sources for jobs means less competition between employers, meaning THEY dictate the terms of employment. "Work for me or go somewhere else... oh, thats right, there is nowhere else" is a terribly strong arguement. De-centrallization in anything, whether it be agriculture, industry, or government is better for the working class, even if it's not quite as good for the bottom line in profit for those that are already rich enough.

Oh...sorry...I'll get off my soap-box now...

Troy

Bounty,

Completely unregulated electricity production is unlikely to work. Freedom to succeed and compete is also freedom to fail. What happens when "Brand X" power & light goes belly up and there isn't enough power for your house? Due to competition, all the other companies are so efficient that they have no surplus to sell you.... (And yes, they are targeting you :-)

Having said that, I agree that greater decentralization is a good thing. Rather than refineries, I wish W had plans to put reactors on those former bases. "Helium cooled pebble bed reactors consuming material taken from decommissioned weapons."

Could Gaia have been so wrong? natural fission reactors