Solar Power vs Nuclear Power - Cost Efficiency No Consideration?
Question:
Does this make for a competative production price, given retail electricity costs?
Should environmental costs be factored in to current prices, as some suggest they must inevitably be, would it then be competative?
Should the lack of fissionable by-products be taken into consideration, given the current suite of Wars (on Terror, on Drugs, under the Rugs, etc)?
Answer:
I heard recently that solar panels pay for themselves in 8 years. And with the cost of fuel going up they may pay off in 4 years. They are guaranteed for about 10 years and the life expectancy is about 25-30 years. If government would subsidize the cost and more manufacturers began producing them their costs would go down. Plus they can be put on almost anyone's roof and do not pollute and pose no danger (unlike nuclear). I think solar and wind turbines installed on single family homes is the way to go.
Solar power is only available in the day without additional costs associated with it. It is also affected by clouds. Solar power can be really expensive or failry inexpensive, depending on wether or not you use Nuclear/fossil fuel as well.
To some extent pollution is already part of the cost. There's some... pollution commodity market or something in the US where you can buy and sell pollution "notes." Otherwise you could be fined or shut down...
Decomissioning fees are part of an electric bill. It might be on your electric bill!
If every roof and in some cases walls of buildings were used to generate at least a portion of the energy used by said buildings, we'd all be a lot better off. Arnold's best move was knocking down NIMBY ordinances preventing people from installing alternative energy. If the government is going to give tax breaks or taxpayer dollars to anyone, it should be to homeowners, not big corporations building huge solar or windfarms and then hundreds of miles of fragile and expensive (every last bolt has to be imported) powerlines to the customer. Nuclear power still has risks, accidents, waste, vulnerability to attack, etc. and little if any precautions, education, training or preparation for a radiation event in surrounding areas.
Well our government has just announced that we will be going to Nuclear power very soon and Australia has plenty of sun but we are being told it is not viable I cant see why not.
What worries me about Nuclear power is the waste that goes with it and our future generations it is particularly worrying because my home state has 38% of the worlds uranium and a lot of vacant land and our state government have a moratorium against uranium mining because apparently when we supply the uranium we are responsible for the disposal of its future waste
.I might not talk for most Australians but I don't not see that it will benefit us in the long run and I have never protested but I will if our Federal government over-rides our state moratorium we dont want to be the dumping ground for the worlds nuclear waste.
How right you are Molly.
wind and solar power should be the way of the future. I saw on the inventors where a gentleman had worked on solar panels that could follow the sun and cloud made little difference. Every household could generate their own power and sell to the grid for industry.
nuclear power stations are not cost effective nor are they environmentally effective when you look at the waste they create and the time that the waste has to be stored for and the risk to man and the environment if it all goes pear shaped.
I to will be marching for the future of our country if Howard tries to go nucleara. Instead they should be offering tax breaks to households. Howard cut the budget for wind power research.
More Questions & Answers...