The question is: is it better to spend billions researching new generations of nuclear reactors or to spend billions working on energy storage?
The former will lead to a switch from older, less concentrated fossil fuels to a newer, more energy-dense fossil fuel. But it's not without well-known problems.
The latter will result in a permanent, eternal solution to the energy problem.
There are limits to how much solar and wind is available, but those are orders of magnitude beyond our civilization's current energy requirements. Other limits to growth -- arable land, decreasing fertility with increasing wealth -- will likely prevent us from ever even approaching those limits.
Solve the energy storage problem and the industrial revolution becomes as permanent as the agricultural revolution. Nuclear power won't do that. So energy storage technology is IMHO a more prudent, higher dividend investment than better nuclear reactors.
Show me any form of serious progress on the energy storage problem, please. Tesla's $40,000 car battery is about the best there is, and that's not encouraging.
In addition for evening out dips and bumps in unreliable renewable energy, it's a good option for excess using excess capacity in nuclear power plants in order to deal with load variation. (Nuclear reactors don't like changing their energy production levels, so evening out the load on them by buffering with pumped water energy storage is a great benefit).
Flywheels are also another option, although I don't think they're nearly as popular.
Overall, purely mechanical solutions seem to be preferred over chemical energy storage for large installations.
Flywheel storage is OK for spinning reserve (responding to fluctuations on the order of an hour or two) but is too expensive otherwise.
My money is on thermal storage, and cheap-substrate batteries (molten salt, liquid metal) for longer-scale storage. For national scale grid storage there are many alternatives for which there's simply not sufficient material to create a feasible alternative.
I haven't really heard of solar based "atmospheric disruption" issue. On the other hand, I have wondered what the effect of releasing gigawatts (terawatts?) of heat (and electricity that will become heat) derived from nuclear power plants year after year. Solar is a closed system energy source; we're going to receive that energy one way or another whereas nuclear is adding energy to the system derived by converting matter - energy that isn't a normal input.
If cities at large become net exporters of electricity it would in some small part alleviate heat bubbles.
If the panels are next the the city, you do concentrate heat more in the city as electric is delivered, but no more than electric supplied and consumed from non solar sources. If the panels are adjacent to the city, you again alleviate the heat bubble to some small extent because you're cooling one area and increasing the thermal gradient between the hot city and cooler solar panel farm.
I don't know how one would conclude that any of these effects are of a magnitude to "wreck the local ecosystem".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
The other solution is large-scale intelligent power grids. The wind always blow somewhere and the sun always shines somewhere. The amount of grid-scale storage backing required for uninterrupted power is probably less than 12 hours. I'm sure someone has done a solid analysis on this.
Sure, but then your power supply is in the hands of other countries. What happens during war?
No different from wars over water supply.
This single statement clearly indicates you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about anything regarding energy production. At all. It's like saying that you can't have an LED display on a space rocket because running it would use up all the fuel. Except, that doesn't even capture the scale of the energy disconnect. I can't actually think of an analogy that accurately demonstrates the level of sheer ignorance in that comment...
Calculate a relevant upper limit: if ALL current human energy needs were provided via wind power, how many modern full-sized turbines would be required? what would the atmospheric impact be, if any? at what point does that impact transition from scathingly negligible to "OMG we're destroying the Earth"? Compare said impact to that of fossil fuels a la "global warming" (a concept which itself would have been derided as "having absolutely no clue whatsoever about anything regarding energy production" just a few decades ago). Don't insult, quantify. I'm not looking for encyclopedic completeness, just a back-of-envelope ballpark akin to "the absolute upper limit for solar power is 1.3kW/m^2, realistic capture about 1% thereof".
Pardon me if I didn't perfectly articulate one of several points to authoritative completeness in a brief blog post.
And while we're at it, given robust suitable LEDs, how many homes could be lit for one year from the fuel consumed in one rocket launch? You might be onto something.
Ok. World energy consumption is about 15 Terawatts.
Solar energy incoming is about 174,000 Terawatts.
Therefore, the percentage increase in energy output if we took all....actually, I'm sure you can work the rest out for yourself.
If you're going to pounce on one sentence (and imply that somehow it should have been thorough when it was just one sentence), then yes I'd like you to back up your broad-brush insults with some figures (nothing difficult, just sensible ballpark framing).
OK, for all your attack verbiage we get one salient point: human energy use amounts to 0.01% of all Earth's incoming solar energy. So back to my concern: where is the tipping point at which shifting all our energy use to "renewables" starts adversely affecting the environment? "Manmade-CO2 based global warming" was laughable, now it's practically a religious doctrine. "Solar strip-mining" kills everything living under those panels, taking most of the light & heat. Hydropower wrecks wetlands by turning shallow warm muddy water (which life therein has enjoyed for darn near ever) into deep cold clear basins. Wind farms have their issues, but lack of sheer scale obscures them, and methinks we are ignorant of what effects vast fields of turbines would have (just as we dismissed the effects of other energy sources listed).
Blowing it all off as "worrying about an LED's effect on a rocket launch" is historically naive. Manmade CO2 is really just a minuscule percentage of total CO2, yet there's a vast movement to severely curtail human activity in fear of its accumulation forcing a "tipping point" toward global disaster. I'm not convinced that solar panels & wind turbines don't, on a comparably large scale, risk similar consequences.
Yes, you can stop there. You are confused.
> "Manmade-CO2 based global warming" was laughable,
No, it wasn't. No-one thought you could increase CO2 levels by 70% and not cause an effect. How would the extra energy be removed? Magic?
And you're now trying to talk multiple points at once so that you can confuse the issue rather than clarify it. That's why I picked on one point. I wanted to see if you would admit it was wrong.
The main problem is that even if you do nothing, after a while the air in the wind stop dew to the friction and all the kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy. So using a windmill and connecting it to heater is global warming neutral, but stupid. Connecting the windmill to an engine is much more useful, and after a while all the movement will get transformed into heat, but the process is still is global warming neutral. If you connect the windmill to a laser, and point it to the space it's possible to remove some energy from the Earth and make it cooler, but the effect would be still totally absolutely completely negligible.
Solar: The absolute maximum upper limit is 1.3kW/m^2, the total solar energy hitting the Earth's disc. Realistically, you'll max out around 130W/m^2 under ideal conditions, dealing with atmospheric absorption, night, clouds, conversion efficiency, breakage, etc. Realistic norm is somewhere around even a tenth of that. Output storage & buffering is problematic, batteries using environmentally unfriendly materials requiring manufacture & replacement over a less-than-you-want lifespan. By the time an installation has become cost-effective, it's done and you'll have to re-install diminishing-return components. On a large enough scale to compete with other energy sources, you're performing "solar strip-mining" on the local environment.
Wind: Big turbines are costly, last about 20 years, annoy neighbors (I almost had a wind farm dropped on my town), and by the time those huge expensive generators wear out or burn up (!) nobody will have a financial interest in replacing/dismantling them. Likewise, inconsistent power output is a problem few seriously address. Converting large amounts of atmospheric movement to heat will itself result in "manmade global warming" type issues.
Old-form nuclear sucks. Between lousy ancient designs and sheer paranoia over "weapons-grade" phases, coupled with vast construction handling high-pressure extreme-danger contents, yeah there's a disaster waiting to happen - and as noted it just takes one to make the savings moot.
New-form nuclear has real potential. Small sealed units incapable of self-destructing, highly resistant to deliberate damage, and easy to transport make it entirely possible for a community to purchase one turnkey reactor and run from that for decades.
Oil/coal will remain a major contender precisely because the energy has already been gathered into convenient pumpable-haulable form, is shelf-stable over usage fluctuations, and has little discernible waste.
Renewables are just not viable, at least not yet. Despite huge piles of money thrown at it (by the current US administration in particular), nothing of marketable substance has emerged. If it were viable, it would be in widespread production. I'm looking to run my HVAC off solar if you disagree.
The bashing of nuclear is mostly limited to old-school hot-water active-cooling designs. Yes, they suck. Get over it and move on to modern designs held back mostly by regulatory concerns which apply those fears to inapplicable reactors without further consideration.