Ann, Solar energy makes sense in the Southwest. The states have the right latitude for solar collection, and lots of desert space to plant the solar farms.
Solar doesn't make sense for the northern latitudes of the country. On the coasts, tidal energy collection or wind power are more sensible. Where neither wind nor solar nor tidal nor hydro power work well, these are the places nuclear power would shine.
There is no single silver bullet which will fix this problem. I'm very very glad to see new nuclear plants. The country must get past hysteria and its mongers and begin thinking just slightly rationally.
I think these two reactors are much needed and I applaud the efforts of the state to work towards bringing back this important source of power. In reality, I would hope we all agree a combination of energy sources will be necessary to fulfill our energy needs in the future. I think it's absolutely shameful the United States of American does not have a viable energy policy. Then again, we don't seem to get too much done in Washington these days. Maybe the politicians will work that out over their MONTH-LONG August vacation.
Solar IS replacing nuclear in California, aided by wind among other energy sources. The two San Onofre nuclear reactors have been permanently shut down, after being offline for 18 months. Although this is causing immediate concern for this summer's energy needs, solar in California, which leads the nation in that type of generation capacity, is gaining in leaps and bounds. For example, last month, the state's solar generation capacity broke the 2 GW barrier: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-solar-breaks-the-two-gigawatt-output-mark California's" goal of 33 percent renewables by 2020 has long been surpassed in Germany. Also, progress in interconnection technologies that tie renewables to the power grid are more advanced than some may realize: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/California-Fast-Tracks-Renewable-Projects
Solar cannot replace nuclear. some one made the comment that solar can replace nuclear with much less waste i believe. Reality is that the process to manufacture solar includes considerable polution and carbon footprint. and solar only works when the sun is up. hence energy storage is needed to be 100% self reliant.
Yet I get them at $80/kwhr down the street, 115amphr, 12.6vdc ones or 6.76vdc by 235amphrs retail. Though I know what and how to buy well as I use them in my EV's too, a much harder app..
And larger ones that utilities would use are even less/kwhr. Remember lead batteries last forever, you just have to reform them every 6-30 yrs depending on type and almost 100% recycled by law.
But Ervin you never answered the question, why do utilities need them? They haven't for over 100 yrs of variable supply/ demand, why now?
Enquiring minds want to know? Or have you been completely fooled by big energy propaganda?
I get PennEnergy newsletters covering the whole/each energy industry in detail sector by sector every day including power generation. Yet none have paid for a battery storage unit. And only a few others mostly paid for by grants.
Only one I know of that is needed at the end of a long rural powerline prone to blackouts where it pays it's way well especially since grants paid for it.
And only wind of RE is variable at all and it like others are predictable or on demand. Take solar perfectly tracks A/C use and why I'll only need 1kw of PV to run my eff home's A/C for 25 yrs. And PV is now down to $780/kw-$.78/wt making it a bargain.
Is hydro or biomass variable? No they like concentrated solar thermal with very low cost storage are far more valuable, like PV solar and in cases of wind like on the east coast all are on demand or made when needed.
Again please tell me where all this lack of RE variability is an actual problem?
Thorium must be considered as the replacement for existing uranium fueled reactor technology.
Safety and waste issues are at the top of the list for why it can (and should) replace uranium.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.