Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to?
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-sol...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-sol...
No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take.
It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...)
The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this.
And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...)
TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.
You're right that the Japanese are now very skeptical of nuclear power. But it's also an objective fact that this skepticism is dangerous, is costing real lives, and is damaging to the environment. Nuclear power is just that much safer and cleaner than the alternatives.
Even after Fukishima, nuclear power is still ten times safer...than sticking solar panels on rooftops (on a per TWh basis). Cite: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
But of course the risk and the damage are very vey hard to calculate, as we can see right now, live and in colour in Japan at the Fukushima plant. And that is the reason why no insurance company would ever offer an insurance for a nuclear plant.
To me it is beyond comprehension why while looking at the horrendous desaster over there, people are still suggesting nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap alternative. It obviously is not.
Actually the risk and potential damage of nuclear is very easy to calculate. "Extremely low." And that's counting Fukushima, because the alternatives are all much, much more dangerous.
We're talking about a technology which, in terms of deaths per TWh of installed capacity, is ten times safer than rooftop solar. Yes, it's safe, yes, it's clean, and our best estimates of the entire costs, including subsidies, say it's significantly cheaper than other clean options.
What's beyond comprehension to me is why people refuse to look at what's truly happening in Japan, and somehow think that it does something other than prove nuclears potential. And it's trivial to show that more people will die in Japan due to their switch from nuclear power than will ever die from Fukushima. That's the real horrendous "desaster".
In the real world, nuclear is quite clean, extremely safe, and moderately cheap. That's cold, objective fact.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... [2] http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-need... (UN-FAO)
If it were about become-independent-and-never-pay-electric-bills again there would be potential for a much wider adoption. But the save the whales perspective just doesn't work especially for many in the single-home-owner areas.
I will buy a Tesla as soon as I can afford it, and it has nothing to do with a desire to save the Earth.
On a small scale this is do-able, but not on a massive scale.
It is a popular verbal feat by the fossil fuel energy industry to state: "Yes, but we can't go 100% because of x.", to chill the discussion and the momentum of renewables.
(And the kernel of truth is that the grid itself is pretty close to capacity in a lot of places, so decentralized generation, even if it costs per-KWh more than centralized, defers or avoids huge capital costs in upgrading the grid, lowering cost overall. That works even if it's cogen with gas turbines vs. something like solar or wind. The subset of crazies on the pro-renewable/green side never remember that the capital equipment also has embodied energy costs/pollution, so avoiding spending on that also is a win.)