Solar Power: Economic Disaster

Rated 1.33/5 based on 3 reviews
Even with free solar cells and batteries, solar power is too expensive. If safe nuclear power is expensive, solar power is a disaster (and so is wind). Here I present an analysis showing that wind and solar are NOT the way to go in terms of economics. Nuclear, geothermal and hydro are the way to go. Clean fossil fuel is a last resort.

Safe nuclear? I discuss that in my next book. More
Download: epub mobi (Kindle) pdf more Online Reader
Price: Free! USD
About Theodore Ong

Theodore Ong is currently an undergrad scholar with a placing for chemical engineering Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. His main interests are science and clean energy technology. Besides writing and self publishing ebooks, he also plays the bass guitar, the Singapore stock market and enjoys good food.


Is Solar Really That Cheap?
"Solar's cheap" claims the anti-nuclear environmentalists. Have they done their math? I have.


Review by: Fredric L. Rice on April 10, 2014 :
The author failed to include the expense of hydro and nuclear in his essay, expenses that are passed on to the citizens of the countries where corporate criminals commit racketeering to be permitted to build their nuclear plants, assured that the cost of cleaning up after the corporate criminals have long since fled is passed on to the citizens of the countries where such plants are built.

It is a common problem around the world: Oligarchy fascists (in the Italian sense of the word) is rampant, a hand full of criminals reap billions of dollars, then when it's time to clean up their corporate eco-terrorism crimes against us, citizens are left having to pay the bills, none of which is mentioned in this author's right wing, uninformed, anti-science missive.
(review of free book)

Review by: Robert Smith on March 29, 2014 :
There is not a single sentence in this set of notes and disgrams that makes any sense.

IF nuclear can be made safe (it cannot - there will always be systematic failures leading to a three-mile island, chenobyl or fukishima) THEN it is better (but only if you ignore the problems of handling Uranium and decommissioning).

Nuclear power operates with HUGE subsidies. There is no reason why we should use this process to boil water. The only reason governments like it is to subsidize their atom bomb making plans.
(review of free book)

Review by: Desertphile on March 29, 2014 :
The math is sound; the sources are sound; the numbers are sound; but the writer excluded several massive costs of using nuclear energy and coal-fired energy.

The "cost of coal" quoted in the pamphlet does not include the economic and social costs of human-caused climate change. The global labor production continues to increase (due to the increase in human population), even as the global GDP has been decreasing, and that is chiefly due to human-caused climate change: that change in climate is due chiefly to burning coal and gasoline. It does not matter is coal provides one watt at $3 (building the power plant and infrastructure), and solar costs $4 a watt--- the cost of human populations being displaced, the costs of mitigating against human-caused climate change, and the cost of decreased food and water production must also be included in the use of fossil fuels.

The same is true of nuclear power. If a power plant and infrastructure costs $3.36 a watt for nuclear power, the cost of storing the waste, and the cost of nuclear accidents (economic and social) must also be added.
(review of free book)

Report this book