Why renewable energy won't work.

[mrstickball]

Troll_Whisperer said:

mrstickball said:

Ah, but at what time do you not need any more capacity?

The problem is that if you balance out costs over the lifespan of a wind turbine, it is still marginally more expensive than something like Nuclear.

As per: http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/   cost per KWH of wind power is approximately $0.09. Comparatively, coal and nuclear are less than half the price. Also, this assumes that one can build wind power to their hearts content. Much like solar PV and solar thermal, I wonder if there is enough land to support enough turbines at the current costs.

Yeah, but nuclear is not as safe. Dealing with waste is also a problem. I care about that more a slight difference in cost.

Nuclear is arguably the safest form of energy we have right now. Fewer people have died from nuclear energy than wind power (by a rate of about 2 to 1) when adjusting for power output. Meaning that, although nuclear has killed a few people due to Chernobyl, the amount of energy produced by plants around the world equate to about 0.004 deaths per terawatt hour. Comparatively, wind power yields about 0.011 deaths per terawatt hour (for reference, coal is about 200 deaths per TWH worldwide, and about 17 per TWH in western countries like the US). This accounts for all environmental factors as well, BTW.

 

Furthermore, the cost of power generation and safety goes far outside of just these factors. If energy is expensive, it means that people must face a reduction in their standard of living in all other areas, as they are having to pay more for the same energy. If energy costs more, can they afford food to live on? Rent/mortgage to live in a house? Money for health care? Education? Money can significantly adjust the life of human beings, and that is why I want to see the cheapest forms of energy available for people - regardless if it is wind, solar, nuclear or MSR thorium breeders. If people do not have to pay additional costs because their government is forcing subsidized electricity onto them, money can be spent elsewhere improving life. So your argument about safety is wrong from more than one factor - not only is nuclear safer in terms of health (less deaths due to the insane standards of nuclear), but in living standards (cheaper energy = less money spent on survival = more money spent on improving standard of living, health, longevity and R&D into future life-enhancing items).