Green Daze » ccs http://www.greendaze.org Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:54:41 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Do you agree with Nature magazine that solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity? http://www.greendaze.org/do-you-agree-with-nature-magazine-that-solar-is-the-most-expensive-way-to-generate-electricity/ http://www.greendaze.org/do-you-agree-with-nature-magazine-that-solar-is-the-most-expensive-way-to-generate-electricity/#comments Sun, 20 Jun 2010 08:25:36 +0000 admin http://www.greendaze.org/do-you-agree-with-nature-magazine-that-solar-is-the-most-expensive-way-to-generate-electricity/ . . . and that coal and nuclear are the cheapest?

In the current issue of Nature, page 872 shows a comparison of costs of producing electricity.

The cheapest is coal without carbon capture storage ("CCS"). Then nuclear. Followed by coal "with mature CCS", then municipal solid waste, then wind onshore, biomass, wind offshore and finally, at the extreme end of cost is solar photovoltaic.

So – if you don’t like coal, then it seems that nuclear is the way to go. Or do you disagree with the findings presented by Nature?
.
.
EDIT @ gcnp58

No, I don’t want to ask that. You go off into your tie-dyed world of living by candlelight if you like, and good luck to you. But please don’t try and force the rest of the world to conform to your vision for it. There’s a word for that.
.

]]> http://www.greendaze.org/do-you-agree-with-nature-magazine-that-solar-is-the-most-expensive-way-to-generate-electricity/feed/ 15