Reply #6: Your link doesn't in any way discuss MAXIMUM renewable potential

[kristopher]

Your link doesn't in any way discuss MAXIMUM renewable potential. The other 70% you ask about is completely doable with renewables also - and it can be done faster and cheaper with renewables than with nuclear.

"...coal-fired generation is eliminated by 2050 and nuclear generation is reduced by over one quarter"
http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/pdfs/Beyond%20BAU%205-11-10.pdf
Beyond Business as Usual: Investigating a Future without Coal and Nuclear Power in the U.S.
May 11, 2010
Prepared for the Civil Society Institute

INTRODUCTION
The electric power industry in the U.S. is at a crossroads. Many of the nation’s generating plants are over forty years old and in need of upgrades to continue operating efficiently. The transmission grid is also in need of reinforcement and expansion. At the same time, the risks associated with climate change are forcing us to consider quantum shifts in the way we generate and use electricity.

Some proposals to address climate change assume that because coal is relatively abundant in the U.S., it must play a key role in our electricity future. Typically, these proposals include massive investment to develop technologies to decarbonize coal and/or remove CO2 from coal combustion gases. Similarly, many proposals assume that because nuclear generation does not emit CO2 directly, additional nuclear plants must be a part of the solution. This assumption has led to new subsidies and large government loan guarantees designed to revive the U.S. nuclear industry.

However, coal and nuclear power come at a high price. New rules enacted to protect public health will require billions of dollars in new emission control equipment at old coal-fired plants. These controls would reduce SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions but would do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. The environmental impacts of mining coal are massive and well documented, and the recent tragedy in West Virginia has brought attention back to the health and safety risks of mining. Mountain top removal presents different risks and costs to communities where it is employed. Coal ash wastes present additional costs and risks to communities around the country. Nuclear power produces high-level radioactive waste, and the nation still has not established a long term repository for that waste. For the indefinite future, the waste will be stored throughout the country at the power plants themselves. The risk of accidents would also increase with additional nuclear plants, and while the nuclear industry assures us that these risks are vanishingly small, history argues that they are not.

This study challenges the assumptions that coal and nuclear power must be key parts of our response to climate change. We investigate a scenario in which the country transitions away from coal and nuclear power and toward more efficient electricity use and renewable energy sources. Specifically, coal-fired generation is eliminated by 2050 and nuclear generation is reduced by over one quarter. We perform a simple and transparent analysis of the costs of this strategy relative to a “business as usual” scenario, which includes expanded use of coal and nuclear energy. We also estimate the reductions in air emissions and water use that would result from this strategy. We do not quantify other benefits of the strategy, such as reduced solid waste from coal and nuclear plants or reduced environmental impacts from mining.

The goal of the study is to provide a highly transparent and objective analysis of the cost of moving away from coal and nuclear energy and toward efficiency and renewables. Toward this end, we have used cost data from actual recent projects wherever possible rather than from researchers’ estimates or industry targets. We include in our analysis the costs of integrating large amounts of variable generation into the nation’s power system and the cost of new transmission needed to deliver renewable energy to load centers. The study is a high-level view of a nationwide strategy, and it is designed to help identify areas where more detailed analysis is needed.

This work is motivated by a simple realization. The need to reduce CO2 emissions will force a major retooling of the electric industry. If we retool around coal and nuclear energy, we will exacerbate a number of environmental, health, and safety problems. If we retool with efficiency and renewable energy, we will largely eliminate those problems. Moreover, the traditional arguments against renewable energy are no longer valid. Energy efficiency and several renewable technologies now cost less than new coal and nuclear plants in terms of direct costs—ignoring the externalized costs of coal and nuclear energy. Additionally, efficiency and renewables are already in commercial operation, so the technology development and commercialization challenge of retooling with these technologies appears smaller than the challenge of developing low-carbon coal technologies and a new fleet of nuclear plants.

Moreover, there is no rush to build additional capacity. Surplus generating capacity in every region of the country provides us the time to carefully and systematically increase investment in renewables and energy efficiency while we reduce investment in coal-fired and nuclear power.

Section 2 of this report outlines the methodology and key assumptions. Section 3 presents the results for the U.S. as a whole, and Section 4 presents results on the regional level. Section 5 summarizes our conclusions. Appendix A describes our methodology in greater detail, and Appendix B describes our assumptions about the cost and performance of technologies in the Transition Scenario. Appendix C shows presents data in tabular form from selected charts in the report.

Cooper looks at costs:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

Lovins examines nuclear claims:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

Offshore wind power in the East is a HUGE resource in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the heaviest demand.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract