Forgive me if I missed it but what about the water needed for steam cycle power plants? I just looked briefly for that in the analysis and didn't see it.
It doesn't matter if it's coal, natgas or nuclear - they all need lots of water for cooling. Nuclear plants in the Southeast have closed in the past due to drought conditions (that's rare isn't it???). Water is one of the things that we cannot survive without.
Besides that the analysis is based on going totally to renewables - something that will require break throughs in energy storage. It also assumes today's technology which just like what we see with anything that involves manufacturing is constantly evolving. Even if going 100% renewable is unrealistic, that certainly doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing in it where it makes sense. For instance - I think the government (at all levels) should be going to PPA agreements on solar. 20 year contracts for energy produced by a roof top system with a 25 yr warranty. System will continue to produce electricity for another 20 yrs for free. It would put people to work and drive prices down. No telling what improvements will come down the pike with that kind of investment. As a reference DeBlaigo said that NYC spends over $600 million on electricity a year - so the Feds spend billions?
I like solar PV - no moving parts - low maint - just clean the surface of dirt. Windmills are mechanical and obviously wear and tear but they are also a technology that has seen considerable improvements over the last couple of decades.
= new reply since forum marked as read