I think the issue with solar's low output is that the solar cell itself is only 12% efficient, meaning that out of all of the Sun's energy that hits the cells, the panel can only convert 12% of that to electricity. So once solar's efficiency gets better, we can begin deploying them into the southwestern areas.

Wind has improved dramatically. When most people think of wind, they think of the big 3 bladed ones. Those are going away eventually. We've developed vertical axis wind turbines that goes into the 50% efficiency range which is close to the max. amount (59%, see Betz's Law). The only problem is that vertical axis windmills need to be maintained more often as they undergo more stress.

Nuclear is nice right now, but in 10 years, all of that demand & inflation will shoot the price of uranium sky high While it seems attractive now, it's not so much in the future. Plus, nuclear plants survive on government funding (lots of subsides), so more nuke plants would just add to more short-term spending.

Nuclear is nice right now, but in 10 years, all of that demand & inflation will shoot the price of uranium sky high While it seems attractive now, it's not so much in the future. Plus, nuclear plants survive on government funding (lots of subsides), so more nuke plants would just add to more short-term spending.

This isn't the whole story, nor is it totally accurate.  (20 years ago I worked for Westinghouse and I follow that industry and would even consider going back there. Westinghouse, now part of Toshiba, is embarking on a hiring frenzy to staff up for a large demand for plants.  They don't build them, but they do design and supply many critical components. They are well-aware of the price of things and the likely future price of things.)

First, the cost of nuclear-generated electric power is largely insensitive to the uranium price.  Uranium can triple in price and the cost of nuclear power to the end consumer won't triple.  The biggest part of the cost is the cost of the plant itself. I'm not sure what a plant would cost now, but $1 billion to $5 billion would be a guess. 

Let's consider the uranium. A typical nuke plant might have 230,000 pounds of uranium oxide in its core.  At $100/lb for the uranium, let's say that's $23 million. (Last I heard the price was something like $120/lb, but stick to $100/lb to make the numbers easier.) That 230,000 pounds is replaced in stages, but it will all be cycled out in three 18-month refuel periods.  On an annual basis, that's about $5 million worth of uranium per year.  Let's say I'm off my a factor of 10 and it's $50 million per year.  That's a lot, but it's still a fraction of the depreciation on a $5 billion total.

Second, yes there are some subsidies, but there are extremely high regulatory costs. Yes, there were limits to what a utility can be sued for (I'm not sure of the limit today), but environmental lawsuits were the other side of the coin.  I can't say it's a wash, but government intruded to provide safety, to provide public confidence, to provide a viable business, etc. etc. etc.  It seemed like every time it intruded, it had to intrude again to adjust for its last intrusion.  I can't believe that those intrusions led to a freer market in energy or to cheaper energy costs.

Mark

There is also a huge movement toward conservation in the commercial and residential construction industry.

In the book "Unstoppable Global Warming....Every 1,500 years" they had a quote that the greatest invention in the last 100 years was insulation.

ASHRAE just increased the minimum required insulation in commercial buildings from an R-15 to R-20.

There are many states following Massachusetts lead in requiring the use of Air & Vapor Barriers in commercial buildings.  The U.S. DOE estimates that up to 40% of a buildings energy costs are due to air infiltration.