jajagabor

Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market

firefly (to supershort): ". . .and nuclear has received zillions of dollars in subsidies - something you keep forgetting to address. so much for your cost-efficiency ratios and 'free' market models."

Nor has supershort yet responded to the obvious lack of compatibility between drought and nuclear power plants. And insofar as the "free-market," it is truly mind-numbing how so many of those on the so-called "conservative" or "free-market" side of things are themselves the absolute worst at voting for subsidies (welfare for the rich), sweetheart tax breaks, and these absurd "pie in the sky" ideas for our grand, glorious, clean "future" with . . . nuclear power running everything! :-) It just never ends . . .

frflyer, thank you for adding to the issue of drought vs. nukes, and putting a little more detail into it than I did. And thanks for the inspiring news about molten salt as a storage medium. I seem to remember reading something about that before, but not until now did I realize how quickly the various methods of storing surplus wind/solar power are evolving.

The molten salt method sounds like the winner, but then again, with NGK's salt and sulfur batteries -- and with the possibilities regarding compressed air -- it would be difficult right now to assess which one (if any) will ultimately be the best at storing electricity.

With all human endeavors, it is only ignorance and stupidity that prevent humane and safe methods of producing all the energy we need, and to grow all the food we need etc. etc.

Solar Stocks: Nine That Will Shine in a Bull Market

Supershort, you said, "Although hydrogen energy is an alternative, in order to obtain it, you need to use water. That is a life sustaining resource, unlike coal, oil, uranium."

What is often forgotten by nuclear advocates is that water is needed on a continual basis for nuclear plants, as the AP article cited below states: ". . . the drought could choke off the billions of gallons of water that pass through the region's reactors every day to cool used steam." What with the periodic (yet unpredictable) weather, drought conditions are making it more difficult for nuclear plants to operate in some areas -- and given the increasingly erratic weather, this problem could easily become worse over time. Depending on nuclear to curb greenhouse gases could thus become a tragic mistake!

This Associated Press story makes it clear that nuclear power and drought do not mix well:

biz.yahoo.com/ap/08012...

In addition, nuclear plants, because of their inherent dangerous nature, require enormous time to license and build, often 15-20 years.

Yet, that is still only part of the picture. Nuclear gets, and has always gotten, far more subsidies than wind and solar, even today. The costs of nuclear storage, the reprocessing of spent fuel rods, the liability (insurance) costs, and the decommissioning of nuclear plants are but a few of the many ways in which the taxpayer foots most or all of these costs. Those who cite the "low" cost of nuclear wouldn't be anywhere as cavalier about its alleged economic advantage were these costs calculated into the picture.

Lastly, the "problem" of storage for wind and solar power is not really a problem. Last month, Scientific American's cover story was about the use of empty underground aquifers and abandoned mine shafts that could be used to store compressed air from surplus energy production from wind and solar -- one of the most efficient methods of storing energy there is. In addition, more efficient batteries are already being manufactured by NGK to store wind power. "NGK, a Japanese industrial ceramics manufacturer, just began selling nontoxic sodium-sulfur batteries with 4.3 times the capacity of their highly toxic lead-acid counterparts." says Stephanie Grimmett, at:

seekingalpha.com/artic...