Ok, here we go Sway and Cam.
First of all, I cannot replace 25% of oil imports because I cannot calculate the amount of electricity used that would be replaced. In other words, what is the electricity burnt by the alternative means?
However, I feel this will satisfy our argument. I decided to calculate what could be calculated - the cost to get the US Electrical Grid TOTALLY off of anything that is not replenishable. This includes coal AND oil. No more foreign imports. I believe these numbers will also calculate in a large spare volume which we need.
I have made a SINCERE effort to be accurate, but do not stand by and say it is 100% accurate. However, it is pretty ballpark. I have linked my sources and footnotes. You can verify them. Please feel free to address any inaccuracies.
In order to get us off of oil on ALL electrical uses:
1) Geothermal can produce 100gwe (footnote1) for a one billion dollar investment. For a 100 billion dollar investment, you could produce 100,000 gwe/year. That is a 100 billion dollar investment.
2) Solar currently produces 3145 megawatts. (footnote 2). I would advise increasing that in the areas where it was doable (ie, the southwest). Assuming no large breaks and no competition, 1 billion dollars would provide 76,923 homes with electricity. If we propose doing 20% of all us homes (that majority being mostly SW homes), that would be [(107,000,000*20%)/76923]*$2,000,000,000= $278 billion to supply 20% of all us homes with solar. I estimate that number to fall considerably... I am giving the highest possible at full retail prices with independent grids. A single solar plant would drop these costs exponentially and would likely fall close in line to wind. That is 234,000 gwh produced. $278 Billion invested.
3) Wind. (See footnote 4 &5). Wind currently generates 48 bkwh in the US, or about 1% of US supply. I suggest increasing that number to 20%. This would require a $43 billion dollar investment. (See footnote 5). The cost of this wind would be 2% more than not doing it. That is 960,000 gwh. $43 Billion investment.
4) Nuclear. (Footnote 6)Nuclear currently produces 807000gwh in the US with 66 sites. I would propose building 221 nuclear sites. That total cost would be approximately $574.6 Billion dollars, since the average site costs approximately $2.6 billion to build. That averages to 12,227 gwh/site-year. That average reactor cost is $2.6 billion. That would produce 3,509,227 gwh. Because there are many areas where wind, solar, and geo may not be the best solution, you can substitute that with nuclear reactors.
Total cost: $574.6+43+278+100 = $995.6 Billion dollars. This assumes no competition in large quantities. Total energy produced from these means (not accounting for others currently in production) = 4,803,227 gwh… or about total US consumption.
Of note is that this scenario does not account for the current production from hydro, wind, solar, or geo. However, for about one trillion dollars, you now have a replenishable, long lasting, clean energy source for our country.
Assuming 126,316,181 households in the USA, that is a $7,916 investment/household – assuming NO business investment (which accounts for 2/3 of the use). If you average that cost out over 20 years, that is a $400/year investment per household for electricity.
I have not added up the number of jobs created or costs in electricity saved. I cannot do that. It is impossible. But that gives you a fair feel for the sum of money to do it. That is almost two full years of oil imports (at 400-600 billion year), or less than twice the cost of the Iraq War.
Footnote1=
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publicati...mal_energy.pdf
Footnote 2=http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12.htm
Footnote 3=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html
Footnote 4=http://www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Fast_Facts.pdf
Footnote 5=http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Overview
Footnote 6=http://www.doe.gov/
Connect with Facebook
