According to the Manhattan Institute and environmentalist Michael Shellenberger from Ted Talks, renewable sources such as solar panels, lithium batteries, and wind turbines will cost twice to five times as much as current hydrocarbon and nuclear energy sources.
Bob Larson
Nuclear energy has smallest carbon footprint, very reliable with 24/7 power, but is the costliest to build. France gets over 75% of their energy from nuclear power, plus they sell excess nuclear power and plants to several other countries. With the extra revenue, they can afford to keep using nuclear power using a common proven design with a life span of 30 to 50 years per plant. This includes the disposable costs of uranium and replacing the nuclear plants, which many materials can be recycled. Plus, experts indicate solar needs 450 times more land to generate the same amount of electricity as it does from nuclear.
Next best is gas energy, most abundant, lowest cost to produce, and least pollutant of the three hydrocarbon energy sources. Plus, the equipment for gas turbines and electric generators last twice as long up to 40 to 50 years, unlike the solar panels, batteries, or wind turbines, which lasts about 25 years. Renewable sources are only 30% efficient at best (due to actual sun and wind exposure), consumes much more real estate and an eye sore, plus the high cost to replace and dispose of the old equipment.
Thus, we expect many landfills to have tons of the old solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, which are toxic to the earth’s environment. And the environmental effects from solar and wind power on the loss of wildlife is not tolerable. The bottom line is nuclear seems to be the answer with highest ROI for the overall cost. It’s expected technology will provide even lower costs of nuclear energy in the future.
Bob Larson is a technologist and Marketing Director for 50 Plus.