pcray1231 wrote:
Fully agree with RLeeP. I've done my share of work on this, even worked for the DOE.
Geothermal shouldn't be overlooked, it's a potential large source of power in volcanic areas, and elsewhere, it can really cut down on the energy use with geothermal heat pumps.
I'm all for wind and solar but land use issues will prevent it from ever reaching 10% of the grid, and even that much would take a tremendous commitment in infrastructure and such. People need to accept that they're great supplemental sources, but nothing more than that.
Nuclear is the answer. Waste and expense are both choices we have made regarding nuclear power, not problems inherent in the technology. With waste, we chose not to recycle the fuel for geopolitical purposes, but doing so would pretty much eliminate the problem. With cost, the fuel is cheap, and it doesn't have to be expensive to build a plant either. We make it expensive with all of the approval process. But for instance, France, they go through the lengthy approval process, approve it, and then make 20 of them from the same approved blueprint. We make 1, and then draw up new plans for the next one.....
And its the safest form too. Even with the unexpected like Japan, it is still far safer than any other power source. Lets put this in perspective. Japan's disaster was the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, and all that happened was an evacuation of an area due to being overprotective (conditions were not dangerous in civilian areas), some excess money spent, and a few people got sick.
Further, regarding a hydrogen economy, nuclear is the ONLY way I see it ever happening. Otherwise, hydrogen is worse than oil and coal.