Sunday, December 23, 2007

Solar and Nuclear Energy

The cost of solar cells, and the ratio of that cost to the electricity provided, have been the primary reasons why solar energy has not really "taken off". I'm always hopeful when that appears to change.

And here's the story of a few new US nuclear plants.

If both of these stories pan out, what will the global warming fanatics scream about next? Oh, of course, we'll still need more big government and communalism--because that's all they really want anyway.


allenm said...

I'll take "nuclear" for $200, Alex.

Solar advocates never bother with system costs preferring instead to focus on the cost of one, particular component like the PV cell. When you roll in the cost of storage the price of solar is still uneconomical.

Also, to generate much power, and by "much" I mean enough to make a real dent in national energy consumption, you're talking about a *lot* of land.

Land's the stuff the enviro-wackos get hysterical about when it's besmirched by vile humanity. Want to guess at the sort of resistance covering ten or fifteen thousand square miles of pristine wasteland with ugly solar cells would generate?

Ellen K said...

As I recall the same environmentalists went after companies that wanted to put up wind generators on Chesapeake Bay. It seems that some prominent people didn't like their pristine ocean views besmirched. BTW, how large a house do some of these people have and how many solar cells would it take just to light the things?

allenm said...

That'd be Ted Kennedy and a bunch of folks in his net-worth bracket. I think the houses are referred to technically as "frickin' huge".