May or may not be a reasonable estimate for one plant.  But surely the 700th won't cost this much - economies of scale should kick in quickly on something that takes as much design work and custom components as a nuclear plant.

I hate to say this and I'd never vote for the guy, but at least it sounds like a plan.  I haven't heard either of the Dems advocate for your solution.

Land Area(wind and solar needs)..plausible.
Every carport in America covered by solar panels at current efficiencies?, or even convert existing road surfaces to solar as some have suggested using new materials. Maybe even cover every building with a solar panel?
Better battery technology...(after all, the sun doesn't always shine nor the wind blow)
Much improved electric grid (with less electrical losses), otherwise all of the above efficiencies gained would be minimized.

I agree better efficiency is a place to start, but it takes education and $$$$.  Hmm ... rings a bell.

How do you suggest raising the large amount of capital investment to do the above in distributed scattered projects across the US with different standards of manufacturing? Thousands of contracts? run by big contractors? Mom and pops putting up panels? At what pace? What about hail damage? UV degradation issues with existing solar panels? Oh ..OK ..Takes R&D $$$..otherwise they won't last more than 3 to 5 years before replacement is needed. get out the Tax breaks for consumers every 5 years.

We would also need a gas tax or something significant to fund it all. Would take decades to replace all existing infrastructure with wind and solar.  Even existing tax incentives appear to not be enough to get many more people switching over to viable solar and wind (faster adoption rates would be needed) and industries to support it all (including taking silicon from competing industries like semiconductors ..yikes! jobs..oh well). Need ramp up silicon production?  OK ..hire new engineers..build new facilities. Takes $$.

Price inflation in silicon might be counter productive, much like ethanol did with food based on corn. Any lessons to learn from that issue?
I'de say so.

Your idea sounds plausible, and I applaud it, it's once again faced with engineering and scalability issues. You would still need the *DREADED* nuclear power you so much oppose to fill in the gaps until the US was awash with solar and wind environmental citizenship, and retired atomic plants(and engineers), which would mean needing to fund continuing operations and upgrades on atomic plants (afterall we don't want accidents do we for the reliable GigaWatts we already have (powering web site like this one) ..makes things messy too.

Take your pick:
Dirty coal (getting cleaner by the day I hear)
Solar and Wind (and scalability issues)
Atomic power (and new smaller alternatives like China is building)..smart guys and gals I hear.
Hydro

The easiest fix for drug addicts who hate anything  that radiates (i.e. America's oil addicts who fear energetic electrons and helium nuclei that could be shielded) is "easy oil"..or coal, and increased ramp-up of solar and wind. But dealing with oil addiction means dealing with drug dealers (foreign unfriendly oil sources).  

Missing winning ingredients to make it all happen?

Education and Time.

Possible Solution?
Join the club of the aging masses that never seem to learn, while we "wish it could be better" for earth club.

-JChan

They're awake, instead of asleep at the wheel and see where the future is headed in my opinion.

They'll miniaturize and modernize atomic power, use plugin-hybrids to eventually reduce their smog issues, export their ideas to us and reap the rewards in jobs and new industries, but it won't all be a panacea of course(they'll still have environmental issues, particularly China).  

US? We'll still be fighting wars over oil because of our stupidity the way it looks to me.

-JChan

The linked example is 4.4 dollar per watt not including interest, or above 8 dollars per watt including interest.  That is not future cost, but current cost.

And as to solar and wind - what scalability issues. Net land use of solar less than coal mining per kWh. Net land use of wind about the same.  That does not even consider that a percent of solar (and some wind) could go on existing surfaces - rooftops, walls, roads parking lots.

uh ....is anyone out there listening?

"Sometimes the psychology of consumerism is as great a hurdle as all the technological solutions dreamed up by the idealist in us all"

-JChan

Gar Lipow wrote: a percent of solar (and some wind) could go on existing surfaces

Then why is it not? Could it be that it is not economically competitive to do that?

Wind and solar are competitive once all the costs are factored in...energy from coal costs should include global warming costs,mercury poisoning.etc...the cost to build a nuclear plant is about the same as deconstruction costs   the large amts of water used cost a lot  according to Lester Brown...as a matter of fact study Lester Brown Jean Polar Bear

Join the Green Party of the US now.You know the other 2 parties are corporate sponsored.

It's hard to imagine any low carbon, affordable energy future that does not include a large contribution from efficiency and conservation. I don't think many people would disagree. That's why all these projections of massive numbers or new nuclear units are straw man arguments.

If you can't build nuclear units to produce the power, you certainly can't build renewables with storage either.

However, the concept of building one or two new nuclear units a month in the 2020 to 2030 time frame is certainly doable. The 104 operating units didn't just appear out of thin air. Considering the impact of the TMI "pause" the majority were built in about a 10 to 12 year span. And that was a time when our GDP and population were on the order of half what they were now. As can be inferred from the original post, France, a much smaller country, built 59 units, mostly in about 20 years or less.

If we work hard on conservation and renewables, continue to develop wind/solar up to their logical contribution of 20 to 30%, and build a nuclear unit a month starting in 2015, coal could be gone in less than 50 years. Continue to fight against all sources but your pet projects and we'll still be 50% fossil fuel in 50 years.

4 trillion dollars worth?

50 billion per year in subsidy diversion (corporate welfare cuts for fossil, nuclear, and agribizz energy) will get this renewable/conservation energy revolution going.

A tax neutral plan.  No new taxes.  

Just how can the 4 trillion for your nuclear nightmare be raised?  Wall street is not buying into the risk.  neither is the public or most politicians.

Maybe you all could get a dicator appointed who would mandate nukes (bush-lite/mccain just won't do)?  Hehey.  Scalia will certainly help out with an appointment, but could Cheney be robotized to do the job?

First cancel the constitution nukers.  Major parts have been already, it shouldn't be that hard.

But that's your next step to your nuclear dreams.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

It's all hogwash.  Once the election is over we will see what we are really facing.

It will be a hopeless battle, but we are used to that.  Maybe Barack can lend some "hope"?  At least with him it is a possibility.

Romm better jump onboard the Barack bandwagon if he wants to have some input this time around.  No one was listening to him during the first Clinton administration.

The stark reality of 4,5,6.. dollar gas is a big lever to motivate the leviathan, I think Barack could use it to move the world, given a well placed fulcrum.  That is the role the usually ineffective environmental movement must play.

We must demontrate how this already existing green technology can stop our energy related disasters.  War over oil, nuclear proliferation, GHG climate disaster, economic decline from trade deficits and ever soaring energy prices, and so forth.

Organizations that take our donations (like NRDC and others) and then lobby for clean coal, nuclear power, and agribizz fuel farming must be brought to heel by the grassroots.  We want those donations to back renewable/conservation energy revolution instead.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

/(I see this is your first comment)/  And here I thought I talked too much - Grist tells me I have over 100 comments, to your 37.

Yes, I've read the posts.  But none tell me how either Dem will get us near zero carbon.  Cap and trade will help if done right, but if introduced agressively will drive polluters to other countries.  Other than that I see a lot of "invest in clean energy" lip service.  Again, a good thing, but investing in R&D is hardly a concrete plan to solve the problem.  "Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure..." (sigh)

Now I'm not saying that McCain doesn't have far worse policies in general.  I'm just saying that outlined above is a practical plan for removing most of our carbon output in a reasonable timeframe.

Have you ever heard of Thorium? Four times the natural abundance of Uranium.

Have you ever heard of a Breeder Reactor? Makes more fuel than it consumes. Seems like majic, doesn't it.

Did you know that a natural byproduct of sulphate mining is an anoying build up of....Uranium?

Did you know that uranium can be recoverred form this big, wet mine called the ocean?

Wow, neat stuff.