Those OLD OBSOLETE plants are not gonna last much longer. Wanna ignore that problem??
Why do you want to make that same problem so much bigger?
We already know that nuclear is unsafe because nothing is infallible and you cannot afford any mistakes with nuclear power. And yes, that applies to the waste products that need to be stored for tens of thousands of years without any mistakes. That is impossible.
Wind power has sufficient potential to supply 3 times the current energy needs of the entire world. Wind power is what enabled Columbus to discover the Americas. Wind power has been grinding grains and pumping water for centuries. Wind technology has now matured into a safe, effective and environmentally friendly means of generating power.
Wind power is the future.
Wind power is unreliable and crap.. High maintenance cost and it disrupts global circulation of near surface winds changing climates of huge areas not to mention the wild life it kills.. You really are an idiot...
ETA: Wind is only viable for about 3-5 hours a day, even in the higher wind zones. Once the sun goes down the wind all but stops. I live near 16 massive wind projects on the great divide and as a meteorologist I can tell you they are down for 75% of the day because there is insufficient wind to turn them.
IF a wind farm is rated at 100 megawatts, it means the power generating capacity if the wind blows 24 hours a day. Now lets apply the fact that they turn for 3-5 hours of a day. Hell, ill give you one more freebie and call it six. That means the wind power output potential is only 25 megawatts. Now we find out that the wind stops and starts and is never constant in pressure (it is always varying.) We loose another 65% of potential. 65% 0f 25% leaves about 17 Megawatts of power that this field is rated for. Now we have to fire up a Coal or NG plant to take up the slack when the winds slow or stop during the time those turbines are in use. Those plants must be running at capacity to take the load so we are burning the same amount of fuel despite those pieces of crap wind mills... And then we tax the hell out of the Fossil fuel plants to pay for this stupidity. Wind power isn't shit...
Then again wind power is huge pile of shit!
Comparative electrical generation costs - SourceWatch
Comparative electrical generation costs
Comparative costs data: Lazard analysis (February 2009)
The investment banking company Lazard Ltd. released the following comparison among generation technologies, in 2008 dollars. The levelized costs include production tax credits, investment tax credits, and accelerated asset depreciation as applicable. Assumes 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, and 5-20 year tax life. Assumptions for alternative technologies include: 30% debt at 8% interest rate, 40% tax equity at 8.5% costs and 30% common equity at 12% cost. Assumptions for conventional generation technologies: 60% debt at 8.0% interest rate and 40% equity at 12% cost. Assumes coal price of $2.50 per MMBtu and natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu. 12% cost, 20-year economic life, 40% tax rate, 5-20 year tax life, coal at $2.50 per million Btu, and natural gas at $8.00 per million Bt.[2]
Coal/Nuclear/Gas: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)
Alternatives: (cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars)
- Gas peaking: 22.5 - 34.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
- IGCC: 11.0 - 14.1 (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
- Nuclear: 10.7 - 13.8
- Advanced supercritical coal: 7.8 - 14.4 (high end includes 90% carbon capture and storage) (assumes $2.50/MMBtu for coal)
- Gas combined cycle: 7.4 - 10.2 (assumes $8.00/MMBtu for gas)
- Solar PV (crystalline): 16.0 - 19.6
- Fuel cell: 12.7 - 15.0
- Solar PV (thin film): 13.1 - 18.2
- Solar thermal: 12.9 - 20.6 (low end is solar tower; high end is solar trough)
- Biomass direct: 6.5 - 11.3
- Wind: 5.7 - 11.3
- Geothermal: 5.8 - 9.3
- Energy efficiency: 0.0 - 5.0
Since we haven't BUILT a nuke plant in the US for about 30 years -- WHAT generation technology and experience did they base the pricing on?
I'll take the same position as the moron "alternatives" do ----- which is --- when you build MORE of it and establish pre-approved design templates that breeze thru approvals -- it get CHEAPER very quickly.
IN FACT --- the govt should provide some land and some grants and have a run-off on 2 or 4 different designs. Let them certify the BEST designs and give them fast track approval for building out dozens of them in 5 years.
First you have to get past the NIMBY problem with nuke reactors before you can even begin to try what you are proposing.
YOU -- are the NIMBY problem. And I'm working on that..