We're almost there with PV Solar price/performance.

[kandrathe]

I don't think that wind and solar and good batteries will be enough, I do think the grid will still need other sources to feed it during different times. But I do think converting as much as possible is still the way to go.

I agree with you.

Some observations to expound on that,

Fission would be cool, but it's not just that. It's also what Taem is getting at across the spectrum of technology. A high tech gadget in the 1960's was a transistor radio, an electric typewriter, a 66 Corvette burned 10mpg, in 62' music was available on compact cassette tapes. Nuclear power was more likely the thing we were going to drop on Cuba. The industry started in the mid 50's and by 1960 there were 6 units in the US generating .6 GW. Now there are 132 units in the US generating output of 99 GW. Worldwide, it's 450GW. And, uranium/plutonium are not renewable resources either with an estimate of 200 years at current usage rates. If we agree to use more nuclear for a limited amount of time (50 years), we can stop the destruction of the planet at the cost of having to keep an eye on some (more) nuclear waste. Based on our rate of technological change, 50 years is probably sufficient to figure this energy mess out.

We call it waste, but really they are useful chemical byproducts of a fission reaction. Much of it can be reprocessed into more fuel, or into other useful stuff. The Europeans have taught us how to deal with it safely with glassification, which while not perfect is better than warehousing it cooling baths forever, or hiding it in spent salt mines hoping they never flood.

Yes, after reprocessing there is some "dangerous" waste that unlike what we do with coal waste can ( and should) be monitored. We have lived with and have suffered with mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals both in the air, and in ground water contamination from all the spent coal ash that goes into land fills. It is not as easy to follow the mercury, and arsenic, etc.

Our environmental track record with coal has been abysmal, so even though it hurts us economically to be cutting out coal more quickly than we were prepared for, it is the BEST environmental news ever. It's harsh to say, but I actually believe it may be better for us to be over heated, or freezing, and deprived of electrical generation, than for the planet to be poisoned by heavy metals. Deaths resides either way. We can probably figure out the heating/cooling, electrical thing another way, but trying to clean up the heavy metal poisons out of the ecosystem takes generations. And this is irregardless of our stance on the anthropogenic impact on green house gases. If you are worried about coal and CO2, then we need to convince the Chinese not the US or Europe. Our other CO2 sin is driving cars.

In the past on the lounge, we've worked through the math on our total electrical generation versus the absolute law of maximal solar power 1000W / meter sq. hitting the planet at sea level. Or, even, the power you consume in your house, compared to the amount of solar panel area needed to replace that power. Then there are the economics of the power generation, and life cycle to consider. A natural gas furnace will cost about $1000 plus or minus depending on your house size, and will last about 20 years or so. The annual cost of the gas to heat the average house is about $2000. Ignoring how the heat gets distributed in the house, since that will be equal regardless of the heating plant. Then in order to be competitive, the solar plant replacement should be between $2000 (Nat. Gas) to $4000 (Fuel oil).

Here is a typical sales pitch on home solar, "With {our} current pricing (Jun. 2014), a medium sized grid-tie system that generates about 815 kWh a month would cost about $10,500 BEFORE the 30% federal tax credit and rebates offered by your state or utility company. This particular system includes twenty four solar panels. The Federal tax credit would take the cost down to $7,350. This price does not include installation, which can be easily accomplished by a DIY-friendly homeowner or a trusted contractor. Take a look at tax incentives for your state. "

Assuming you are in an area where the 24 solar panels can generate 815 kWh per month, and that 815kWh per month satisfies your heating, cooling and electrical needs. This system sounds like it is meant to replace only the electrical needs (possibly cooling), and not heating.

"In 2012, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh, an average of 903 kilo watt hours (kWh) per month. Louisiana had the highest annual consumption at 15,046 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,367 kWh"

If the government wanted to help expedite, what they should do is offer to bankroll (say up to $15K) home owners conversion to solar, or geothermal, or any other non-fossil fuel source. Home owners can pay them back (at the rate they'd have normally paid for energy using the fossil fuels). The one time tax incentive is fine, but most people can't really scrape together the $4-$10K it would take for the capital and labor to get the conversion installed.

Overall, though, if the efficiency of solar cells increases while the price falls, the day will come where we really can design them into every home.

Edit: Two last thoughts; There is now a track record of research confirming the relationships between energy consumption and GDP ( i.e. national wealth). The danger I see in messing with power generation and the price per KWh is the potential for negative effects to global economies. Much like the misguided detour we've taken by burning our food as fuel, I'd hate to see us adopt a politically and emotionally driven bad idea. This is also why I reject the idea of Carbon Credits, or Carbon taxes. It rewards carbon speculators sapping money from *real* infrastructure development, and I'd rather we reward the people who are really building the better mouse traps. They don't need the disincentive of more overhead, and besides, we should be driven to action by fear of *real* consequences for inaction. I think the fear mongering is actually working.

In 2008 I warned my employers about economic trouble brewing just because oil was spiking above $100/barrel . If you had been watching investments around that time, it was another era where stock prices were too good to be true. The housing bubble was the weak spot that blew, but I feel that oil prices were the pin that pricked it. The danger in a fast growing economy (over-heated) is that momentum of prices overruns the values of the stuff we produce. In other words, up until the end of 2007, it was easy to make money because everything just seemed to go up. In 2008, things started to get more rocky (again I think due to the cost of energy), and the easy money days came to a crashing halt. We are in an era of stimulation now, where the cost of borrowed money is so low, that *Rich* people can't find many good places of low risk, so choose to just sit on it and let the fed pay them in reserve interests. The common rabble, like us, languish.