Google announced today that it is investing .25 million in an energy technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). According to an MIT report on EGS, only 2% of the heat beneath the continental US between 3 and 10 kilometers (depths we can reach with current technology) is more than 2,500 the annual energy use of the United States.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/19/google-investing-over-10-million-in-geothermal-energy/
Geothermal can provide baseload power just as well as nuclear, at much lower cost (5 cents per kWh as opposed to over 10 cents per kWh).
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/13/nuclear-power-part-2-the-price-is-not-right/
http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-09.html
Similarly, many industry experts believe that solar thermal will likely deliver power for well under 10 cents per kWh fully installed in the next decade.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/concentrated-solar-thermal-power-a-core-climate-solution/
Geothermal and solar thermal plants can also be built much more quickly than new nuclear plants.
So why should we dramatically increase our use of nuclear power (as many have recently suggested) when it’s more expensive, has a greater environmental impact, takes longer to build, and is more dangerous than solar thermal and geothermal, which can also provide baseload power? What’s so great about nuclear?
