A new discussion on Grist about nuclear power (impelled by McCain's touting of a gas tax holliday and nuclear power, terrible ideas, both). No need for it, when renewable energy and energy conservation boosted with a modest level of government subsidy diversion could power our nation.
8000 hrs/year (85% total CP)x 1 million mw (total US generating capacity)= 8 trillon kwh per year. Times 10 cents per kwh that would be 800 billion. Maybe 1 trillion dollars at retail, 11 to 14 cent per kwh actual range, that we pay for electric power every year. But the actual cost was 327 billion. Large customers pay much less, maybe 5 cents per kwh?
I'm guessing that conservation can cut that figure to 200 billion, then with plugin vehicles it would go to around 300 billion.
50 billion in subsidy diversion could subsidize up to 20% of that over the first five years of renewable energy revolution. About right as far as buildout rates at the start. AWEA says that by 2015 20% of presnt grid power could come from wind. Wind installation rates would have to triple to meet that goal. With a 10 cent per kwh subsidy (less maybe 5 cents for large utilities) that time table would be possible. A boom results in exponential growth.
As the econmomy recovers, subsidies could be gradually reduced, increasing tax revenues should allow for up to 300 billion per year in per kwh subsidies per year after 5 years, decreasing to zero over the whole deacde. After that renewable energy would be on a level competition with other systems. No more need for subsidies. Cost to consumers for solar panels and plugin cars/bikes would me at mass production/bigbox store levels.
A level energy source and savings competition would be the goal over 10 years, with another 10 years to get to 100% renewable and organic agriculture that would actually reverse GHG climate disaster.
The nuclear power industry/government regulators (a revolving door system, that is the problem, no real oversight) should be allowed to build a few experimental reactors in remote, previously contaminated goverment radioactive disaster zones like Rocky Flats or Hanford.
If these newer, safer reactors can eat their own waste and compete on cost, and can be proven safe from terrorism, earthquakes, proliferations risks, leaks, and can be proven to have an acceptable decommisioning cost; then, and onml;y then should new nuclear power plants be authorized.
