Solar Cells for Cheap

I would be happy to replace my roof with these cells and get SOME reduction in my energy bills,

I would rather the damn politicians stop destroying American's access to energy and get a tremendous reduction in my energy bills and a tremendous increase in energy availability from real sources of power.

If you can get electricity for free 12 hours a day and pay for it the other 12,

Which is to say you will still need a grid with a very similar capacity regardless of your solar cell investment.

Now where shall that capacity come from? Solar cells ? Wind (same lousy energy density as Solar).

Terrorists could target them. They would become targets in an all out war, and as safe as they are there is always the possibility of something unexpected going wrong, whether caused by an accident or some natural disaster like an earthquake, or an intentional act. I feel like my family is safer living far away from any nuclear power plants. Odds are high that no one currently living near a nuclear plant will ever be affected by a nuclear disaster, but the risk for them is certainly greater than it is for those who don't live anywhere near one. Those living near nuclear power plants have one additional risk my family does not have.

Like I said though I probably wouldn't live in a big city like New York City either. That place is a major target for terrorists and it would be a major target in an all out war. I probably wouldn't live in a place like San Francisco either because aside from being a target, that area is prone to major earthquakes. Others are free to live in those places if they want, and if they want nuclear power plants there or anywhere else that's fine by me too, just as long as it's not near where I live. I'd be opposed to one going up anywhere near my hometown. Maybe I'm being overly cautious on this, but that's the way it's going to be for me.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, just leery of it. The more plants that are built around the world the greater the likelihood there will be accidents, or natural disasters, or man made events at nuclear plants that lead to disastrous consequences. The more nuclear waste generated around the world and shipped here and there for storage, the greater the likelihood of major contaminations that could negatively affect us in a major way. And of course there is the problem of nuclear weapons. The more nuclear plants there out there the easier it will be for bad guys to enrich nuclear materials to weapons grade quality, or at least for bad guys to gain access to that material enriched by those who were more or less the good guys. I do not believe that we or the international community at large are capable of 100% effectiveness in policing nuclear activity throughout the world. Irresponsible zealots of some sort are going to get ahold of nuclear weapons at some point and cause a lot of problems with them. Sooner or later that's going to happen, and the more nuclear power plants there are throughout the world the sooner it will be.

It is true that nuclear plants alleviate the need for coal and natural gas fired power plants and that would reduce pollution. I'm no environmentalist but there is no sense in unnecessarily polluting our environment when there is a simple fix. As for electricity being available at a reasonable cost from nuclear power plants, I wonder if it is true that it ends up being any cheaper to consumers from those plants as opposed to other types of power plants? Nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build and they have a lot of ongoing costs. Without considering up front costs, regulatory costs and the costs in keeping the process safe it may be considerably cheaper to produce energy with nuclear power, but is it so much cheaper when you consider all the costs involved? And how much money are taxpayers out because of nuclear power? The government has always been heavily involved in the process from the day the applications were filed to build each plant. I don't know how all this works but my guess would be that significant tax dollars go to regulating and policing the nuclear power industry.

Nuclear plants are incredibly expensive to build and they have a lot of ongoing costs.

A HUGH chunk of the cost of building the plants in the 70's was the legal costs from the suits brought by the nuke wackos. Seabrook actually had TWO plants under contruction, but ended up only finishing one and bringing it online because it took 10 years of legal wrangling and all those costs involved just to get that ONE up and running. It would have taken them another 10 to get the second one going, and they just didn't want to spend that money that was essentially down the drain.

I don't believe that. These plants cost several billion each to build. The legal costs couldn't have been but a small fraction of the overall costs of building the plant. That sounds like a bogus excuse to me.

Terrorists could target them.

I'd rather have a compact reactor to defend than a monstrous LNG terminal (which is where we are heading).

I feel like my family is safer living far away from any nuclear power plants.

Contrary to your feelings nukes are far safer in terms of human life than coal mining or propane.

Remind me how many people were hurt in Three Mile Island?

ZERO. That's what you get when you design for the worst possible case, a core melt, which is a tractable problem.

When a plant is being built, or has been completed, but cannot open for years because of legal wrangling, they are not making any money, thus it is a hugh cost to them. Why do you think that utility companies stopped building them? It wasn't worth it to them from an economic standpoint. It's the same reason there hasn't been a new refinery built in almost 30 years.

Which is to say you will still need a grid with a very similar capacity regardless of your solar cell investment.

Yup.Fortunately, we already have one.

Now where shall that capacity come from? Solar cells ? Wind (same lousy energy density as Solar).

Where it's cost-effective, yes. Most of our energy for the foreseeable future will continue to come from the same sources as today; my point is that there isn't, and won't be soon, a single replacement.

You're free to live next door to one.

"When is the last time we built a reactor in this country?

Now when is the last time the government subsidized solar and wind in this country?"

Nuclear reactors are subsidized too:

"The Energy Policy Act, signed by the President on August 8, 2005, has a number of articles related to nuclear power, and three specifically to the 2010 Program. First, the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was extended to cover private and DOE plants and activities licensed through 2025. Also, the government would cover cost overruns due to regulatory delays, up to $500 million each for the first two new nuclear reactors, and half of the overruns due to such delays (up to $250 million each) for the next four reactors. Delays in construction due to vastly increased regulations were a primary cause of the high costs of some earlier plants. Finally, 'A production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatt-hours from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of their operation, subject to a $125 million annual limit. The production tax credit places nuclear energy on equal footing with other sources of emission-free power, including wind and closed-loop biomass.' (ibid, copyright, permission obtained to use in Wikipedia - see discussion)

The Act also funds a Next Generation Nuclear Plant project at INEEL to produce both electricity and hydrogen. This plant will be a DOE project and does not fall under the 2010 Program"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program

The cost of building nuclear power plants is enormous. Several are on the market today because the companies that own them can't make ends meet. They sell for millions, as opposed to the billions it costs to build one. The government is offering subsidies to build more plants, because utility companies can't afford to do it on their own. While fuel costs may be lower than with traditional power plants, the ongoing operation and maintenance costs coupled with principle and interest payments on the exorbitant up front costs are too high. Nuclear power is not exactly cheap.

Nuclear reactors are subsidized too:

What better way to destroy it?

Also, the government would cover cost overruns due to regulatory delays, up to $500 million each(!!!!!)

Delays in construction due to vastly increased regulations were a primary cause of the high costs of some earlier plants.

The Act also funds a Next Generation Nuclear Plant project at INEEL to produce both electricity and hydrogen.

Oh God, make it stop.