I think the original concept of this thread was "how you" would fix the U.S. energy crises", and was not intended to be some political energy rag site that abounds everywhere, while the problem(s) continue. I my view, political interference into some issue usually occurs to cloud and issue, and protect the status quo.
It does little to cure a problem, and only makes the lobbyist, attorney's, politicians, and the media wealthy. In the end, the issue dies on the vine of boredom, and we still have the problem.
I retired after 35 years from generating electrical power by steam, (oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear), jet engine peaking units, and hydro electric.
The best, the cheapest, the safest environmentally is hydro. Geo thermal is pretty good, and Hawaii is currently getting about 40% of it's electrical energy from it. And there is no fuel cost.
Fossil fired boilers are about 35% efficient, very reliable, but are not only damaging from green house gases they produce, but in sucking up "vast" quantities of resources. How vast this consumption is, is seldom realized by the public.
A quick example is coal. To fire a coal fired steam plant producing 650 MW's requires 10,000 tons of coal per 24 hours. 5,000,000 lbs. of air "an hour".
Of all that heat energy generated, 1/3 of it up the smoke stack, and about another 1/3 goes out the cooling towers, and 1/3 is converted to electrical power.
After burning all that coal you are left with about 5,000 tons a day of very acidic, sterile bottom ash and fly ash waste, that needs to be reburied someplace, where it can not get into the water supply.
True, coal is relatively cheap in relation to other fuels, but it is cheap only in a certain context, i.e.; BTU's. Environmental damage factors are not factored into its BTU cost advantage.
There are approximately 300, 650 MW + sized steam plants in the U.S. alone. From that, one begins to literally "see" the environmental problems they cause.
Oil and natural gas, being slightly less environmentally damaging, but are "much" more expensive fuel wise to operate. And both fuels are becoming more expensive and hard to find with time. And, as we all know, they continue to fuel the energy crisis.
Nuclear power is cheap. That's a laugh! Nuclear steam plants are not that efficient when compared to fossil fueled plants that run 2300 to 3200 psi throttle pressure and a steam temperature of 1010*F. (Higher pressure = higher efficiency)
Nuclear plants run in the neighborhood of 800 to a 900 psi on the newer ones, and much less on the older ones. The reason is their heat exchanger is located between the reactor and the steam processor that feeds the steam turbine. It becomes almost impossible above a 900 psi to design a high efficiency heat exchanger that can handle 800*F temperatures, and "NOT EVER" develop a leak caused from reactor coolant fluid flow erosion, corrosion, or the varying of thermal cycling.
Most people also forget, that cheap nuclear power is subsidized by the tax payer. "ALL" nuclear mining, processing, and sale is controlled and supervised by the government(s). Who then sells the pellets to the utility industry at "an agreed on cost". Usually 55% of the true cost in producing the pellet to make it competitive most other fuel costs. The taxpayer is picking up the difference.
Maintaining the radioactive waste is also controlled and paid for by the government, (taxpayer) "FOREVER". True, no green house gases are produced by nukes, but huge amounts of radioactive waste is.
Nuclear power has its place. In the ocean, powering submarines in my book.
Radioactive waste is bad stuff. Given time, there are very few of natures elements it will not turn literally, to dust.
And if it is compressed to save store space for example, it gets hotter, both in temperature and radioactivity. It is also very corrosive. This is why there is a BIG, BIG problem of its disposal and longterm storage.
I have found it interesting, that at the beginning of my career, the solution to "the nuclear waste problem" was just over the hill. At the end of my career, 35 years later, it was still, just over the hill. Almost no "practical" solution has yet been found. That kind of sums up how difficult this problem really is, and why the Earth's core is still molten from radioactive decay 4.5 billion years later.
Solar energy. Solar energy is expensive to produce, and only works when the sun shines. But let's take a closer look at it. Even though the current generation of solar cells are only 15% or so efficient, and expensive to produce. Solar, like hydro and wind power, has no fuel cost. Thus saving hundreds of millions in fuel bills, lost resources, and producing no green house gases over the life of that generating source.
Also plant maintenance is practically eliminated in comparison to a normal fossil fuel steam, or nuke plant. Consequently, though more expensive per MW to build, it pays for itself much-much quicker through reduced operating costs and becomes a cheap source.
Solar also, along with wind and hydro, does not increase the temperature of the Earths environment, beyond what the natural shinning of the sunlight on the Earth would cause. If global warming is a consideration, this is a major advantage.
Wind is extremely practical, and is springing up everywhere the wind blows enough to justify its use. But again, it only works when the wind blows.
Wave power. I don't consider wave power a viable power source, beyond servicing small isolated areas, or islands. The robustness of their design to deal with storms, tides, problems with marine growth, makes them extremely expensive for the little power they produce.
If I were to have my way in fixing the energy crises, I would do four things.
#1 Increase the intertie distribution network throughout the U.S. to take more advantage of the cyclic nature of electrical power use across the nation as the time of the day and usage moves across the country.
#2 Eliminate much of the unnecessary lighting of highways, roads, as well as advertising. The amount of electrical power wasted for these items is absolutely staggering! In reality much of this waste produces little safety or practical benefit. Much of it is for just "psychological security and safety", and prevents little crime or accidents. The advertising illumination could still be done of course, but with much lower and practical intensity.
One only has to look at the night sky on an overcast night to see all the energy going to waste, lighting up the clouds. Or look at the satellite photographs of the Earth at night and see the huge amounts of energy being wasted...world wide. Keeping in mind of course, that a majority of this light is reflected off the ground, (a very poor reflector) and was not originally intended in its designed use, to be beamed into space. But to light the area around it.
#3 Future good hydro location sites are almost gone now. Geothermal sites are very limited in the U.S. Though Iceland gets by fine with them, as does Hawaii.
However solar energy is world wide. True the conversion of solar cells are not very efficient, and takes a very large area to produce large amounts of power. However, there are many vacant south facing roof tops in the U.S. The tax incentive for installing an entire solar cell covered south facing roof, plus a percentage cut of the power the roof produced, would not only be extremely practical from the homeowners prospective, but also supply his needs, as well as any excess into the grid.
A large utility solar array farm, could be devoted to converting solar power into heat, and used to melt salt, where the heat stored in the molten salt is used to run turbine generators during the night, or during cloudy days.
The key here is using what's available, and practical in a particular region, and being able to ship any excess to a need elsewhere with a minimum of loss.
There will still be a need for nukes, and fossil fuel plants, but much-much less so than we are lead to believe.
The electrical industry is extremely conservative, and in many ways this is good. It makes for reliable service. But the industry also wants control, and also wants tax write off's on their generating equipment. Plus the investors want a maximum return on their investment. So efficiency and environmental damage sometimes become secondary.
I think we are at the beginning of a new way of looking at energy. Just as a point is now being realized where increasing the miles per gallon of fuel in a vehicle, has got to the point that the vehicles accessories power use are suddenly becoming a major offender to increasing that MPG of the vehicle. Ten years ago a vehicles accessories were never a real consideration. Now with the development of hybrid cars, it is becoming a real concern.
In the same aspect, smaller distribution areas, supplying their own power needs for that moment by using the best environmental resources available in that area are becoming very viable as the population density increases, and they become practical.
This concept has several advantages. It is more efficient, more reliable, cheaper to construct, less targetable, and less vulnerable to storm, or other natural disaster damage affects.
#4 Finally, I would make research into a practical means of storing electrical energy an extremely high priority. It is "The Key" to any future system.
Unfortunately, certain industries do not want others meddling in their market nitch, and consequently suppress alternative research, (unless they thought of it) and control patent use, to maximize their products.
In some ways, when such improvements could affect the welfare of the entire country, or the health of the Earth, I view such greed as a crime against humanity.
Industry view it as improving business.
boab
52 Week High $317.00, today: $107.80