Reply #10: Well...

[bananas]

You (incorrectly) wrote:

The link I provided stated (correctly) that the Eastern grids can support about 20% wind/solar WITHOUT significant transmission upgrades.

No, the article you linked says:

http://www.brighterenergy.org/4155/news/wind/federal-report-claims-20-wind-power-penetration-feasible

However, the analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory warned that “significant” expansion and upgrades to the grid in the eastern US would be needed to support such a scenario.

You wrote:

Of course you are going to include these hundred billion dollar significant expansion costs to the lifecycle cost of wind right?

The part of the report I quoted says:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=248810&mesg_id=248933

Although costs for aggressive expansions of the existing
grid are significant, they make up a relatively small portion of the total
annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied.

So your concern about the cost of transmission upgrades is irrelevant.

As I said in my previous post:
Even Exelon CEO John Rowe admitted that wind is cheaper than nuclear and that new nuclear does not make economic sense for this decade. Reducing emissions this decade is crucial - we have to build as much wind as possible as soon as possible. That goes for other renewables, too: solar PV will reach grid-parity this decade. New nuclear is not needed at all, and certainly not this decade. There is no good reason to advocate new nuclear.