Robert Lynn wrote:
So I don't think conventional wind has much of a future near term given incredibly low cost and massive availability of shale gas, and it is that low gas price that is also driving the western move away from nuclear due to lower cost.
Beware of "low cost" solutions that have large hidden costs. Shale gas is only cheap when you ignore the cost of destroying the water table, permanently destroying agriculture, and making thousands of acres unlivable. Coal is "cheap" because the power companies get away with killing 20,000 people a year with coal particulates. They do not pay a penny of compensation. If the airlines killed 20,000 passengers in a single year, the cost of compensation and lawsuits would be so high aviation would cease to exist. If the power companies were held accountable, and forced to stop particulate pollution, that would raise the cost of cold-fired electricity to the point where wind and other sources would be a lot more competitive, if not actually cheaper.
Factor in the likely cost of global warming and coal or shale gas are infinitely more expensive than wind power.
As I pointed out previously, in a few hours during the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power went from being the cheapest source of electricity in Japan to being the most expensive, by a huge margin. All previous cost-benefit assessments were rendered meaningless. One accident is all it took to destroy the industry. If it becomes generally accepted that global warming is real, in a rational world that realization would be sufficient to bankrupt the fossil fuel industry. Granted, that will not happen here in the real world. Shale gas, on the other hand, often causes immediate and irreversible damage which is readily apparent. If you own land in New York or Pennsylvania, and you sell the development rights, you are selling your birthright and destroying your future and your children's futures. Anyone with eyes to see will know this. It is not something that will happen generations from now.
- Jed
