The Power Vote debate wind turbine tour is making it’s final stop today at Hofstra. And today promises to be bigger and badder than ever. The student leaders here at Hofstra have pulled together a huge team of rad people to storm the campus today.
The discussion of clean energy in these debates has been really alarming and incredibly disappointing. To hear our candidates publicly supporting lies like “clean coal” and “safe nuclear” instead of real, safe, healthy, renewable energy has given us all the more reason to mobilize our peers to fight for our future. We refuse to allow the coal, nuclear, and oil industry dictate our energy future. It is time for our political leaders to start listening to the millions of our voices instead of their millions of dollars.
Among the million things the students have planned today (street theater, demos, rallies, debate watching parties, massive pledge collection) they’ve also got a team of people in Santa costumes sending a super clear message that “clean coal” is a myth, just like Santa. THere is also a homeless polar bear roving the campus, begging for real change. Today should be great. Check out the Power Vote blog and Flickr.com/powervote for updates.
While I have tried to stick to words such as “cleaner” or “safer”, please don’t forget “cheaper” in the discussion. An all renewables grid means that you will have low capacity factor energy devices (~40%) combined with low capacity factor energy storage systems (i.e., there is not enough geothermal and hydropower to replace all the fossil and nuclear baseload).
In addition, construction of such a grid will require even more of the skilled craft (e.g., electricians, welders, pipefitters, mechanics, etc.) that are already in short supply.
Assuming the technological hurdles can be overcome, we also need low carbon electricity that is not overly expensive.
This lie is getting old – coal and nuclear are only cheaper because of market distortions.
Subsidizing the construction of power plants, externalizing the cost of environmental degradation caused by coal mining and failing to include the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel for tens of thousands of years make them look cheaper than renewable energy on paper, even though they aren’t.
With a level playing field and 100% internalized costs, renewable-based electricity generation can be far cheaper than coal and nuclear.
I really don’t lie, it is work enough to remember the facts.
While I cannot speak as well on coal as it is not my specialty, nuclear has internalized most of its costs already. Price Anderson fees are paid by industry as well as fees for decommissioning and waste management. If you don’t like Yucca (which is probably deep enough for burial) you can use 5 km deep boreholes in crystalline granite. You do not need to actively monitor the wastes (especially if you recycle the fuel and remove the longer lived actinides).
Even with these additional expenses, nuclear is competitive. By the renewable advocates own arguments they require more skilled craft labor to construct. Finally, nuclear does not need energy storage systems.
I am NOT claiming that nuclear is the whole answer. My guess is that nuclear can provide the baseload while we figure out the practicality of an all renewable grid.