ssj12 said:
mrstickball said:
Your going to get biased material from both sides of the argument.
Honestly, you need a comprehensive package on both the renewable, and non-renewable sides, because neither side provides complete answers.
Non-Renewables such as Nuclear and Clean Coal are pretty good choices, as the power output they provide far outweighs renewables, takes up less space, and is less invasive and easier to place in very specific areas. You cannot have all of America's electricity produced in a corridor in Nevada, or the Dakotas like renewables demand. Coal/Nuclear is much more flexible in that regard.
On the other hand, where applicable, renewables are a good choice, as they do, theoretically, provide a decent alternative in Solar and Wind, but aren't quite as developed as the NR's. Renewables must be pursued, because if they are developed properly, can easily surpass NR's - but may take decades to reach that point (whereas America is going to outstrip it's electrical demand in 2-3 years in most regions)...NR's can't be built at the pace we need them, at the moment.
All forms of eletricity generation - Nuclear, Coal, Solar, Hydro and Wind are going to be invasive to the environment. Turbines and Dams will change ecological patterns in their native areas. Solar will deflect sunlight which may cause problems. Likewise, Coal/Nuclear have their own problems and produce emissions, and require mining operations to dig for their power sources.
Oh, and FYI - Current costs per watt for industrial-capacity (that is, generated by massive stations), via the Royal Academy of Engineering of the UK (2004):
Coal: 2.5-3.4 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Natural Gas: 2.1-3.1 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Nuclear: 2.2 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Biomass: 6.8 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Offshore Wind Farm: 7.2 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Onshore Wind Farm: 5.5 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
Wave & Marine: 6.7 Pounds Per Kilowatt Hour
To me, that's pretty damning of renewables as currently affordable. Although they're needed, it's important to understand that the cost to consumers for such power would be, and will be, very expensive, and sometimes unreliable due to the fickle nature of some renewable's generation methods.
So again - We need both types, and in generous amounts. Nuclear seems to be the most viable option for non-renewable (due to abundant supply and rather affordable), and Solar is the best option for renewables (as technology will drive down costs better than most other renewable methods). |
what about Solar? its missing in that list.
and look up 3D Solar panels. Its 500% more efficient than current solar panels using the same tech we have now.
|
The list didn't have Solar. But it really depends on the kind of solar your using. Systems range from 51p/kWh for residential (2 kWh generation), to 41p/kWh for larger commercial operations (100 kWh generation). I *do* believe prices come down to around 20p/kWh for industrial-scale plants are in the mix, but it's still well above other methods, currently.
You can say that 3D solar panels are vastly more efficent (and they are), but that doesn't take into considerations the costs of producing said 3d panels vs. traditional 2d panels. As far as I've seen, with all the 3d panel hype - There are no viable cost estimates on what the panels actually cost, nor a timeframe in which producing them for national (or local) electricity generation. They may be a great option down the road, but I don't see any news about plans to implement 3D panels - which makes me question their current viability.
