Fezziwig wrote:

Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear...

DWN wrote:

Well said ,Strawfoot. Good to read some common sence here. Nuclear relieves pressure on oil usage and should be vigorously pursued.

coolbreeze01 wrote:



Yes, good job.

Strawfoot wrote:



Is it possible to call shenanigans on this claim without incurring another landslide of rants?



The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008. That's the clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy.



Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

The facility is on 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts electrical, and typical operating capacity 70%-95% of this. The plant is a major source of power for Phoenix and Southern California, capable of serving about 4 million people. The plant provides about 35% of the electricity generated in Arizona each year.

It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour[5]. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh[6]. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high.


So the Solar Power Plant is 1900 acres has been projected to produce 280 megawatts.

The Nuclear Power Plant is 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts, for a total of 3.72 gigawatts.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Nuclear Power Plant takes up twice the space and produces 13 times more electricity. It serves 4 million people vs. 70,000 homes, if those two can be compared.

So exactly how did you conclude the two were equal? Where are your sources. I simply looked at the Nuclear Power Plant here in Arizona and the proposed Solar Power Plant here in Arizona.

Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%? It would go a long way in explaining why you are met with so much skepticism.

sirdrakejr wrote:

I love hearing about replacing our oil, coal and gas fired generator systems and saying "No" to nukes. So we get into Solar, wind and geo-thermal power ONLY.

Well folks, please tell me what happens at night when the sun sets and the winds calm down. Where do we get the power then to turn on the lights, power up the electrics cars and cook dinner in the microwaves? I think until we come up with a better way, OIL and/or GAS is still the best and cheapest to use with clean burning coal the most plentiful. Until someone figures out how to replace them for a 24 hour duty cycle, they wont be replaced.
Not in our lifetimes!
Frank