I like this discussion...we may not agree on the best energy sources, but at least we're having an intelligent conversation about alternatives. Keep it up!
Quote from SomeYoungGuy:
Watching this disaster unfold real time has completely turned me from pro-nuclear power to anti-nuke.
Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
Quote from SomeYoungGuy:
Watching this disaster unfold real time has completely turned me from pro-nuclear power to anti-nuke.
Somebody tell me I'm wrong.
Quote from Cache Landing:
Not true, see my post above. Current power loss from transmission is only 8%. But my point above regarding on-site generation sums up the logical approach.
The reason we haven't yet converted is because until recently they have been cost prohibitive. On a large scale project you could expect a price of about $0.10 per kilowatt hour. Right now the retail price for electricity is also right around ten cents per kilowatt hour. So if someone were to want to fill a desert with them it would be a losing operation. The supply of electricity would rise sharply and thus the retail price would drop and the cost of panels would overwhelm the revenues of the business.
Efficiency and price are inversely correlated in this industry. Over the last two years the price has dropped by over 65% and efficiency has increased accordingly. The industry is full of propaganda, but soon there will be no hiding the fact that solar is becoming viable very quickly.
Quote from Neenisti:
Another point.
We have more Nat Gas than the Saudis have oil.