Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists released an open letter to world environmental policy makers urging the development and dep...
Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists r...463 days 12 hours 4 minutes ago
Coal is a much nastier power source than the one we have chosen to fear in a deadly form of displacement activity. Most of the afflictions wrongly ...
Coal is a much nastier power source than the one we have cho...466 days 10 hours 17 minutes ago
Here's a remarkable fact: For the past two decades, 10 percent of all the electricity consumed in the United States has come from Russian nuclear warh...
Here's a remarkable fact: For the past two decades, 10 perce...472 days 10 hours 11 minutes ago
On December 10th, Pandora's Promise will be available on iTunes. Mark it in your calendars today!...
On December 10th, Pandora's Promise will be available on iTu...491 days 11 hours 59 minutes ago
How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environmentalist Delusions Two weeks ago, four of the world’s most respected climate scientists to...
How Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Highlight Environment...498 days 11 hours 1 minute ago
Robert Stone's fascinating documentary makes a convincing case for a nuclear future. Bored by the tranche of lefty-liberal journalistic documentarie...
Robert Stone's fascinating documentary makes a convincing ca...498 days 11 hours 17 minutes ago
(CNN) -- Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet. Climate and energ...
(CNN) -- Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes...505 days 11 hours 11 minutes ago
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew about nuclear energy was wrong? Watch Pandora's Promise on CNN on November 7 at 9:00 p.m....
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew...509 days 9 hours 41 minutes ago
Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmen...
Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and sola...512 days 10 hours 48 minutes ago
The government has given the green light to building the first new nuclear power plant in a generation. But while many have welcomed the move away fro...
The government has given the green light to building the fir...512 days 10 hours 49 minutes ago
The opening of the film “Pandora’s Promise,” a new documentary by director Robert Stone, provides familiar coverage of a spirited protest agains...
The opening of the film “Pandora’s Promise,” a new doc...513 days 10 hours 51 minutes ago
As George Osborne hails a renaissance for nuclear power in Britain, Alex Macbeth reviews Pandora's Promise, a new documentary film that asks whether w...
As George Osborne hails a renaissance for nuclear power in B...513 days 10 hours 52 minutes ago
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew about nuclear energy was wrong? Watch Pandora's Promise on CNN on November 7 at 9:00 p.m....
What would happen if you discovered that everything you knew...513 days 10 hours 57 minutes ago
Usually, when documentary directors make a film about the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, it becomes a call to end all forms of nuclear powe...
Usually, when documentary directors make a film about the cr...522 days 11 hours 51 minutes ago
The latest documentary from the provocative Oscar-nominee embraces a controversial stance on nuclear energy. "Everyone wants that perfect source of e...
The latest documentary from the provocative Oscar-nominee em...533 days 12 hours 47 minutes ago
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budget that we must follow if we’re to keep the world under a temperature rise of 2C over pre...
The IPCC fifth climate change report lays out a carbon budge...537 days 13 hours 54 minutes ago
Click here for an interview with Robert Stone on Sydney's radio Fantastic....
Click here for an interview with Robert Stone on Sydney's ra...537 days 13 hours 56 minutes ago
Academy Award nominated director Robert Stone is coming to Sydney to present special screenings of his new documentary feature Pandora’s Promise....
Academy Award nominated director Robert Stone is coming to S...542 days 14 hours ago
FilmInk grills Oscar-nominated documentarian, Robert Stone, about ‘Pandora’s Promise’, which makes the controversial argument that nuclear energ...
FilmInk grills Oscar-nominated documentarian, Robert Stone, ...543 days 13 hours 58 minutes ago
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone’s latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone’s controversial Pandora’s Promise t...
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone’s latest documentary...543 days 14 hours 4 minutes ago
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary is stirring up debate wherever it is shown. Stone's controversial Pandora's Promise tells t...
Oscar nominated director Robert Stone's latest documentary i...543 days 15 hours 7 minutes ago
Robert Stone, réalisateur du film Pandora's Promise déplore qu'aucun distributeur européen -même ARTE- n'a souhaité diffuser son film. Une sortie...
Robert Stone, réalisateur du film Pandora's Promise déplor...547 days 14 hours 3 minutes ago
In the new, critically acclaimed documentary Pandora’s Promise former anti-nuclear activist turned pro-nuclear advocate Richard Rhodes makes the fol...
In the new, critically acclaimed documentary Pandora’s Pro...549 days 14 hours 9 minutes ago
I know this isn’t exactly astronomical in nature, but it is a matter that I feel strongly about. Anyone who knows me knows that I am pro-logic and p...
I know this isn’t exactly astronomical in nature, but it i...558 days 14 hours 5 minutes ago
I’m staring over the edge of a cliff into a seam of coal some 80 feet thick running along a chasm cut deep into the earth. A gargantuan claw rips a ...
I’m staring over the edge of a cliff into a seam of coal s...585 days 14 hours 8 minutes ago
The recently released Robert Stone film, “Pandora’s Promise,” has created a stir among environmentalists and the nuclear industry. But two longt...
The recently released Robert Stone film, “Pandora’s Prom...645 days 14 hours 1 minute ago
Pandora's Promise has been invited to screen at a festival of anti-nuclear films in Quebec. Debating whether to attend for a raucous Q&A. Tempted. http://uraniumfilmfestival.org/en/quebec-uranium-festival3 days 2 hours 10 minutes ago
WHAT'S BECOME OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT THAT - sees mountain ridges and shorelines as locations for wind farms? - sees pristine deserts as locations for solar energy development? - sees fertile land as a source of biofuels? - sees forests as a source of (responsibly harvested) biomass? - sees free-flowing rivers as sources of hydro-electric power?3 days 15 hours 5 minutes ago
Political correctness on college campuses reaches new heights. Sadly, this often precludes questioning the received wisdom of the environmental movement on the issue of nuclear energy and a host of other issues.6 days 14 hours 45 minutes ago
Wow, the very people who've denounced Pandora's Promise as "propaganda" have hired Madison Avenue to fight back. Ouch! Message: windmills are new and cutting edge whereas nuclear energy is from the Stone Age. Really? http://makenuclearhistory.org22 days 6 hours 3 minutes ago
If you are in favor of nuclear energy and are frustrated by the lack of progress in having your voice heard, we strongly encourage you to read this. As we said in Pandora's Promise, this IS the beginning of a movement!24 days 8 hours 43 minutes ago
New legislation may make Illinois a leader in putting nuclear energy on an even playing field with renewables as a low-carbon source of energy. It's unfortunate, however, to see this effort tied so directly to the fortunes of single energy company.26 days 13 hours 3 minutes ago
A big shout out to Pandora's Promise editor Don Kleszy who attended the Oscars last night as part of the team that made the Oscar-nominated feature-documentary Last Days in Vietnam. A shout out also goes to Pandora's Promise original score composer Gary Lionelli who also worked on Last Days...33 days 3 hours 54 minutes ago
Please share and show support for the great climate hero (and a friend), former Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed, arrested again today by the regime on "terrorism" charges (you heard that right). http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-3157527934 days 8 hours 53 minutes ago
Helen Caldicott jumps the shark! Listen to her cozying up to Putin and embracing his rationale for invading Ukraine. ~At 11 minutes listen to her defense of Putin. ~At 24 minutes she complains that nobody pays attention to her anymore. ~At 27:30 she credits herself with ending the Cold War. ~At 32:30 she begins her rant about nuclear power plants, claims that nuclear power is proof that America is actually a socialist, or even a communist country. ~At 41:00 she begins long talk of a diabolical cover-up at Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. ~At 56:00 Harvey Wasserman claims the Koch Brothers are financing the building of nuclear power plants - huh?34 days 13 hours 24 minutes ago
I have always been against the use of nuclear power but not necessarily because of the technology or the waste issue. The problems with the use of nuclear power is politics and greed. If the most robust technology is implemented in the safest locations, built with no short cuts, operated by the best technicians available and held to the highest operational safety standards nuclear power could give us the time to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and attempt to develop new energy sources. As long as the politicians continue to bend to the will of corporate giants and the ultra rich we are doomed. The average person needs to realize that the economy is a man made entity that is currently being used by Wall Street to turn the middle class into serfs to serve the people at the top of the corporate world. Politicians need to lead by taking control of the basic energy needs of their constituents and make sensible decisions for the future.39 days 7 hours 42 minutes ago
If you're a journalist seeking an informed opinion from the Union of Concerned Scientists about the latest advances in nuclear reactor design, this is the cover page of what they send you. What's wrong with this picture?49 days 12 hours 48 minutes ago
Freakonomics takes on the sacred cow of ENERGY EFFICIENCY. Did you know that California predicted an 80% reduction in home energy use when it's strict energy efficient building codes were put into effect in the 1970's? Turns out that California homes consume about the same amount of energy today as they did 40 years ago. How come?50 days 8 hours 39 minutes ago
How many people know that the most recent comprehensive analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists on advanced nuclear reactor designs came out in 1990? 25 years ago! And they are the primary source of information for the media in providing "balanced" reporting on the issue.50 days 10 hours 16 minutes ago
It's great and better opportunity to invest on hydropower sector at Nepal. The assumed power production is about 200,000.00 MW by recent study. On another side the world best station for sharing opportunity in trade of hydropower due to huge demand of neighbour country India. Great option for investors to invest in hydropower at Nepal53 days 2 hours 48 minutes ago
The death-knell for biofuels finally hits the mainstream. Facing reality is the first step to solving our energy/climate problem. It appears that's finally starting to happen - and not a moment too soon.58 days 13 hours 33 minutes ago
At the risk of once again pissing off our pro-nuclear but climate skeptical friends, the bad news on human induced greenhouse gas emissions keeps getting more alarming. If you saw Pandora's Promise you'll know that Margaret Thatcher was among the very first political leaders to focus international attention on this issue - proof that this is most certainly NOT a left wing hoax.59 days 14 hours 11 minutes ago
The New Republic chimes in on nuclear energy with lots of inaccurate and misleading information. Comments section is open to anyone wanting to set the record straight for their readers. The more the better.60 days 2 hours 35 minutes ago
Just had a detailed briefing at Google on the most promising and ready-to-go advanced nuclear power plant design we've seen. This promises to be the game-changer we've all been waiting for. Massively scalable clean energy that's totally safe and cheaper than coal.65 days 2 hours 16 minutes ago
Eduardo Porter of The New York Times elaborates on the work done by Michael Shellenberger (of Pandora's Promise) and The Breakthrough Institute into how energy innovation comes about. The lessons of this fascinating history are profound.66 days 8 hours 58 minutes ago
CO2 emissions are pushing us to the brink of a mass extinction in the world's oceans. More reason to ramp up EVERY available alternative to burning fossil fuels, even ones that some people find objectionable.72 days 3 hours 55 minutes ago
Thank you Pandora's Promise for teaching me about radiation. Here's the highest radiation I've found so far with my Terra P dosimeter near Snowbird Ski Resort, Utah. (SLC, UT is on average around .13) Let's just say I'm much more afraid of the toxic pollution in the Salt Lake Valley than this tiny amount of radiation.77 days 3 hours 41 minutes ago
A couple years ago I took a chemistry course. In the reading was "described" the efficiency of nuclear power. They could only describe it because, I suspect, it would've been banned reading otherwise. I remember thinking how ludicrous carbon based power is with all of the pollution and greenhouse gasses when, if used correctly without cutting corners, nuclear power would solve sooo many problems. Pandora's Promise answered all of my questions. I am pro-nuclear and, yes, I am a tree hugger.77 days 14 hours 17 minutes ago
We've posted this before but as America continues shutting down its nuclear plants, it's worth reminding ourselves exactly where our carbon-free electricity comes from. The solutions to climate change are not easy.81 days 12 hours 53 minutes ago
A futuristic clean energy technology that has allowed France and Sweden to be carbon free in their electricity generation is being replaced in the US by cheap natural gas. Is this anything to celebrate?81 days 13 hours 20 minutes ago
Heard the one about how half of all children will be autistic in 10 years as a result of Roundup herbicide? A textbook example of scientific quackery that's all too common these days. Well worth a read on how easily seemingly credible pseudo-scientific claims catch fire and spread:84 days 11 hours 53 minutes ago
Most environmental leaders would have us believe that global energy use is set to decline due to increased efficiency and that renewable energy is poised to replace both fossil fuels and nuclear power. Both positions are contradicted by reality:90 days 6 hours 37 minutes ago
I saw "Pandora's Promise" at a film festival. We need nuclear power plants that are as near 'fail safe' as possible. I also highly recommend the film, "Thorium Remix 2011" available for viewing online.95 days 5 hours 22 minutes ago
I wish I could make Nuclear Power as a Solution to Climate Change Rotary Club length, but it is has to include all of: • facts about climate change, • the public's opposition to the solutions (here nuclear power), • what social scientists say about why we aren't listening. After this presentation, a couple of people said, "yes, that's just what I do to help make the public discussion a mess." Half is the presentation, half is discussion. The number of tribal warriors decreased during the session, always a sign of success! http://youtu.be/EETr44JW9z0106 days 10 hours 7 minutes ago
Pandora's Promise: "Our good friend Ben Heard in Australia is one of the best spokesmen on the planet about energy and climate issues. See him in action here and share with friends." http://youtu.be/IzbI0UPwQHg106 days 10 hours 58 minutes ago
In recent poll about UK nuclear power, more than twice as many men (57%) than women (26%) approved building new reactors. Why? http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pei/2014/12/confidence-in-new-nuclear-grows-in-uk-but-women-remain-sceptical.html109 days 2 hours 33 minutes ago
Its been posted before by me but this time its on Behance and been added for my portfolio. Would be grand if it gets some coverage. https://www.behance.net/gallery/21579223/Pandoras-Polygons-(FMP-BTEC-Lvl-3)123 days 12 hours 49 minutes ago
I asked Steve Kraus if he knew where I could get my hands on a shotgun and some musical instruments, on the cheap and he hasn't responded. I know that he "likes" this page and hopefully he will see it. He is a newly elected Representative and is in the news recently pertaining to items such as this. Hopefully someone will reach out to him on my behalf. Many thanks. God bless all of us. John 3:16.127 days 5 hours 31 minutes ago
How sad that their best efforts on curbing CO2 output is selling them to someone else. http://www.ibtimes.com/swedish-energy-giant-vattenfall-ab-will-dump-its-german-coal-plants-reach-climate-change-1716889138 days 23 hours 42 minutes ago
Pandora's promise should be released in more languages / translations / subtitles so that people who don't understand english well could have a chance to understand what is being said in the documentary.147 days 10 hours 33 minutes ago
From Pandora's Promise: BREAKING NEWS: Everyone has been asking us, "What can I do to get involved?" Now we have an answer! We have created a new, global, pro-nuclear environmental NGO just for you. We're called ENERGY FOR HUMANITY. Join us. Spread the word. Get involved. Your children will thank you. And so will we. www.energyforhumanity.org162 days 8 hours 52 minutes ago
I finally got to see Pandora's Promise today, courtesy of an inter-library loan. I didn't expect they way it started with rallies by the antis. Has anyone made a list/transcription of the supportive evidence used? That would be nice to have in a text file for future use.163 days 9 minutes ago
How quickly we forget. The thing about a nuclear disaster is the unfortunate aspect of the word "irreversible". There are places around Chernobyl will *never* be habitable again and amazingly, the accident was nowhere near as bad as it could have been. The molten radioactive magma in reactor 4 was meters away from reaching the pooled water below, which would have likely set off a second explosion at the megaton level, spreading plutonium over the whole of *Europe* rendering it uninhabitable. One reactor to make the whole of Europe uninhabitable. The IFR reactor and other generation IV and V designs are much more stable and safe. Much more resistant to accidents and much more resilient if there is an accident. But they all, by definition, still dealing with highly enriched fissile material. It's the things we can't imagine that could bring around irreversible catastrophe. Earthquakes in safe seismic zones? Terrorism? And other completely unlikely and unimaginable things. The Chernobyl disaster too, at the time, was unimaginable. I'm not sure that Pandora's Promise was telling the whole story objectively. http://youtu.be/dS3WvKKSpKI175 days 13 hours 8 minutes ago
I just finished watching your documentary and it has changed my perspective. Like so many people I bought in to the romance of solar energy. It isn't enough to want to believe in something when you don't take the time to review the science behind it. No matter what energy source we use, there will always be risks associated with it, but we need to pick the best option for us. Now is the time to invest heavily in our education as well as research and development. No use crying over spilled milk, we must put our differences aside and find a solution that works for our planet and our needs. Thank you for educating me on this issue.182 days 17 hours 30 minutes ago
Do you think this is real? I know that a lot of sea animals have glowing capabilities that had nothing to do with radiation. I think this is a scam to scare people, but I prefer to hear what a professional thinks.187 days 13 hours ago
Dr. James Hansen published an estimate of lives saved and CO2 NOT released due to nuclear power. This is Sovacool's response. Anyone know of a rebuttal to this? http://www.nirs.org/climate/sovacool-et-al-hansen.pdf193 days 22 hours 40 minutes ago
Hello fellow nuclear enthusiasts! Check out my team's finalist proposal for the MIT Climate CoLab competition - please vote for us if you like our ideas for a licensing process for advanced nuclear reactors! http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300401/planId/1305301200 days 22 hours 19 minutes ago
Please see the USEC story, and how petty politics and Wall Street corruption can hinder clean energy infrastructure in rhe USA, setback economic growth, and hinder peaceful diplomacy with Russia. They were in your movie.........,,,204 days 6 hours 36 minutes ago
I'm sorry I hadn't heard about "Pandora's Promise" earlier. I'm just watching the beginning now, and very excited to see it. My father is an Environmental Attorney at Hanford, Washington. I'll be wanting to see what he thinks of it. BUT! - Perhaps not nearly as important as the central issue of this documentary, and yet... - I MUST know what the song on the opening credits is! In fact, I'm sure I might find the rest of the music interesting as well. Would you please tell me what it is, and where to find it?233 days 10 hours 54 minutes ago
It's all based on your fears about global warming. The truth is, If the world stopped using fossil fuels right now. It won't stop climate change. The most you can hope for is a short term delay. The earth is ever changing. In FACT nothing can hide from change. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN! So now all those people who were against nukes have changed their minds and are now pushing it and saying with a straight face that "We were wrong it's really not as bad as we thought" So now you are willing to compromise the long term for a short term band-aid. What you are really doing is causing pain to people who cannot afford to pay for rising energy costs. Which in turn affects food prices and all else. Along with this administration which cannot stop themselves from printing money and driving up energy costs, for what, Global Warming??? GET A GRIP!!! This movie ought to be called Propaganda's Promise.253 days 13 hours 26 minutes ago
Reality check. Even the most famous solar company in the world has NEVER made a profit. Solar City is good at selling stock, it just can't make a profit. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303376904579135842033421008258 days 12 hours 7 minutes ago
I'm having a minor ethical dilemma here. Someone on another nuke-related group posted a link to a working full HD version of "Pandora's Promise" on Youtube and it doesn't appear to have Robert Stone's official sanction. I have the deepest respect for what Robert Stone and his cast and crew have tried to do and they deserve every penny that comes to them from the legal proper use of their intellectual property. At the same time, I want to upload a digital copy of Pandoras Promise to every PC, phone and tablet in existence for the betterment of all mankind. What shall we do? Protect and respect Stone & company's legal rights, or spam the link as fast and far as we can?265 days 13 hours 7 minutes ago
We all fell for it didn't we. Amazing lengths big oil; coal and gas will go for profit. My state, NC will allow fracking as soon as next spring in Davie, Dan River, Durham, Sanford, Wadesboro and Ellerbe sub basins and river basins. Wasn't PA and OK enough of a lesson. And now there is a great chance Duke Power will get a pass not to clean up coal ash deposits. You want a sustainable replacement to the energy crisis, go nuclear!269 days 12 hours 35 minutes ago
Researching a nuclear disaster, I found a documentary by Robert Stone, released 2013 called "Pandora’s Promise”. After lifetime of a very disturbing adventure with the atom, I have found my answers and you will also. This is renewable!272 days 4 hours 22 minutes ago
Less nuclear, more CO2. Every time. Everywhere. Germany, California, Japan, anywhere. "In February 2012, Southern California Edison closed down two nuclear reactors at its San Onofre plant. The plant was responsible for generating 8 percent of California’s electricity. Initially, it was only a temporary shutdown to give the company time to fix cracks in the steam generator system. However, the overly complicated repair and licensing process led them to retire the reactors for good. The state turned to fossil fuels as the easiest solution to make up for the energy gap. In the following year, carbon-dioxide emissions in the region climbed 9.2 million tons — having roughly the same effect as if an additional 2 million cars were suddenly driving on the region’s roads." "After Japan took all of its reactors offline in the wake of the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi, the country saw both a 6 percent climb in carbon dioxide emissions and a 42 percent jump in power generation costs in 2012. The emissions increase was Japan’s largest in 20 years." http://forumonenergy.com/2014/05/28/less-nuclear-energy-equals-more-u-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions/273 days 20 hours 34 minutes ago
China's nuclear expansion accelerates. "On Friday, China’s President Xi Jinping told a government meeting that development of nuclear energy should be accelerated. “By adopting top international standards and ensuring safety, China should lose no time in constructing nuclear power projects in eastern coastal regions,” Xi said, as state-run Xinhua newswire reported." http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-17/xi-jinping-gives-nod-to-china-s-expansion-of-nuclear-energy277 days 12 hours 20 minutes ago
While nuclear has no growth, solar production continues to soar I know all the environmentalists on this forum are interested in progress with solar PV installations. Solar is growing rapidly -- much more rapidly than indicated in the Pandora's Promise film. California is getting more energy from solar every day than from its two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon. Solar power here is more than doubling year-to-year. To illustrate with some actual data, I pulled this information from the CA ISO web site. This is current as of yesterday, JUN 22nd. The following is for grid-connected commercial solar one megawatt and larger systems in the CA ISO balancing area. This is known with some precision since these systems include an automated reporting system that indicates energy produced minute-by-minute. These figures represent about two-thirds of all the solar power systems in California. AVERAGE MWh PER DAY FOR THE MONTH COMPARING ONE YEAR WITH THE PREVIOUS -------------------------- JUL 2013: 17,119 JUL 2012: 8,309 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.03 AUG 2013: 19,753 AUG 2012: 8,299 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.38 SEP 2013: 20,902 SEP 2012: 8,326 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.51 OCT 2013: 18,772 OCT 2012: 6,473 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.90 NOV 2013: 15,721 NOV 2012: 4,993 yr-to-yr growth factor: 3.15 DEC 2013: 16,272 DEC 2012: 4,288 yr-to-yr growth factor: 3.79 JAN 2014: 16,965 JAN 2013: 6,035 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.81 FEB 2014: 21,063 FEB 2013: 9,292 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.27 MAR 2014: 28,776 MAR 2013: 11,441 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.52 APR 2014: 34,202 APR 2013: 13,175 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.60 MAY 2014: 38,197 MAY 2013: 14,417 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.65 JUN 2014: 43,130 JUN 2013: 18,172 yr-to-yr growth factor: 2.37 We know yr-to-yr doubling cannot continue forever (if it did, within 12 years, CA would produce more energy than the world uses). It is clear the yr-to-yr doubling trend will continue through 2014.... possibly through 2015 and 2016 (CA would have 36 GW installed by then). California now gets approx 62,000 MWh per day from solar. Nuclear averages about 50,000 MWh per day total for 2 reactors. Assumptions: ------------- .3 summer (e.g., now, JUN 2014) capacity factor for commercial .15 winter capacity factor for commercial (ave commercial cap factor .23) .26 non-commercial summer capacity factor .13 non-commercial winter capacity factor (ave non-commercial cap factor .20) As of JUN 2014, California now has approx 9 GW solar installed 6 GW commercial in the CA ISO area (including solar thermal) 3 GW non-commercial (or other commercial outside of CA ISO) state-wide 6 GW * .3 = 1.8 GW average for commercial yields 43.2 GWh over 24 hrs 3 GW * .26 = .78 GW average for other yields 18.7 GWh over 24 hrs278 days 17 hours 5 minutes ago
You really want to cut CO2 emissions? Follow Ontario's lead with nuclear power and not Denmark with wind. "The average Dane, riding around on his or her bicycle, scrupulously recycling his or her cans and bottles, and using less than one-quarter the electricity that the average Ontarian uses, had an electricity CO2 footprint nearly three times that of the average Ontarian!" http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/06/20/whats-rotten-in-the-state-of-denmark-electricity-policy-and-its-even-more-rotten-in-germany/279 days 13 hours 44 minutes ago
Nuke boosters say "France, France, France! China, China, China!!" But soon they'll only have China. And then China will learn nuclear is a waste. http://online.wsj.com/articles/france-to-dim-its-reliance-on-nuclear-power-1403113287280 days 8 hours 48 minutes ago
We haven't been storing solar energy from PV much. Know why? There hasn't been much need. Now the need is starting to appear. Necessity is the mother. ENGINEERING is a word that people on this forum don't seem to understand. http://solarthermalmagazine.com/2014/06/18/german-solar-breaks-three-records-within-two-weeks/283 days 1 hour 44 minutes ago
Rates of thyroid cancer among women in Belarus have increased up to 12-fold since the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, near Kiev, Ukraine, in April 1986. Among young women aged under 14 in higher risk areas of the republic the rates have increased almost 30-fold since the disaster, new research has shown. I found this movie intellectually insulting. It should have been titled "False dichotomy" because that's what it was. "To be anti-nuclear is to be in favour of fossil fuels" - I see no blatant flaws in that logic.286 days 20 hours 32 minutes ago
France getting rid of nuke, putting in solar. http://www.solardaily.com/reports/juwi_Develops_Solar_Park_on_the_Site_of_a_Former_Uranium_Reprocessing_Plant_in_France_999.html The construction site in Getigne, near Nantes in western France, visibly marks a turning point in our energy supply. Soon clean and climate-friendly electricity is produced on exactly the same grounds where once radioactive uranium was reprocessed287 days 5 hours 20 minutes ago
Latin America solar growing rapidly http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/latin-american-solar-market "It’s very clear that Latin America has one of the world’s brightest solar power market outlooks. High power prices and volatile fuel supplies have made solar cheaper than fossil fuels in many countries, driving new investment and capacity additions..."287 days 5 hours 26 minutes ago
As nuclear power dies, solar rises BTW, this article mentions 10 GW solar at the end of 2013. It's 15 now... "As utilities find nuclear power less and less cost effective, new solar photovoltaic installations in the United States are springing up. New solar installations in 2013 reached a record 4.2 gigawatts, bringing the total to 10. On average, one gigawatt of solar photovoltaics powers 164,000 U.S. homes. That means power for 1.6 million homes." http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/opinion/hayes-denman-solar-power/287 days 5 hours 55 minutes ago
Nuclear vs. Solar costs. "Crescent Dunes is a 110-megawatt power plant with total reported capital costs of $910 million, according to its website. That’s $8,200 per kilowatt. The Vogtle reactors — also DOE loan guarantee recipients — are a combined 2,234 megawatts at a reported cost of about $14 billion, or $6,700 per kilowatt." "The Vogtle reactors will generate full power roughly 90 percent of the time. Even with the ability to store power once the sun has gone down, Crescent Dunes will only generate power about 50 percent of the time. After you adjust for capacity factor, or the actual production of a power plant as a proportion of nameplate capacity, Vogtle’s cost advantage is enormous. " http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-is-cheaper-than-solar-thermal287 days 10 hours 44 minutes ago
E se a solução para o crescimento sustentável passasse pela energia nuclear? O documentário Pandora's Promise, assente nesta premissa, foi o tema central da rubrica João, o Outsider na 100ª emissão do Aquecimento Verbal.291 days 8 hours 47 minutes ago
Peak demand yesterday in the CA ISO area yesterday was nearly 40,000 mw, which happend just before 4pm. Commercial solar delivered 4206, or about as much as 4 nuclear reactors. Total renewables 12,500 or about 12 nuclear reactors! These hot days strain the capabilities of the whole system. Failure is not an option. People can die from heat stroke. So, which sources delivered at that moment? 4206 - solar 920 - wind 3668 - hydro -------------- 8794 mw from our major renewable sources In addition, there was at least 2000 mw from smaller solar systems*. The 4206 is only commercial grid-connected systems 1 mw and larger. There was additional 1710 mw renewable from geothermal, small hydro, and bio. So, adding all renewable 8794+2000+1710, we were getting approximately 12,500 from renewable sources nuclear? Not so much... 2278 Of course that's better than some hot days when nuke has to shut down. The largest part of the 40,000 peak load was covered by natural gas, with nearly 19,000 mw. So what if we tried to cover this demand with nuke? What about solar? -------------------------------------------------- We'd need another 24 GW of solar (given we have 5300 installed to get 4200 at 4 pm) to meet this 19 GW of demand now met by natural gas. It would take 21 GW of nuke (assuming 90 % capacity factor) At $2 per watt for solar, it will take an investment of $48 billion For nuke at $10 per watt, figure $210 billion. At our present rate of increase, we can and likely will install the 24 GW solar within about 3 years. 21 GW of nuke would take decades, even if you could convince everyone it would be a good idea. And ... solar costs are going down. It may be much less than $48 billion. Nuke costs will continue to escalate as oil prices continue to skyrocket over the next decade or two. It's a no-brainer folks. Forget nuclear and go solar. ______________________ * The un-counted smaller solar systems (e.g. rooftop) had the effect of lowering demand291 days 13 hours 22 minutes ago
In the US, we burn oil at the rate of 19 million barrels per day. Currently, it's about $100 per barrel.. That comes out to about $700 billion per year. In recent years, our entire energy budget has been about $1.2 trillion per year. Think about this: we get about 37 percent of our energy from oil, but it is taking about 58 percent of our energy dollars. That's bad for the economy now, but this chart shows you ain't seen nothing yet. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. If you understand this chart, you will understand we should not be wasting time even discussing building nuke plants right now. There isn't time. The number one energy problem is OIL. We must replace it asap. Most independent oil analyst (i.e., ones not paid by the oil industry) agreed with the peak oil warning people had been giving, including me. http://gregor.us/oil/the-decline-of-available-energy-to-society/ In my 2010 article, I said the solution is solar. The chart above (before all my markups on it) is from David Murphy -- one of Charlie Halls' PhD students at NYU. (NOTE: my marks are based on the chart as-is. The chart is a little bit wrong... the peak is being stretched out some ... but this will make only a few years difference. We are facing a deep drop-off in oil production and skyrocketing prices ... very little energy in return for our oil dollars) ________________ further reading: http://www.uvm.edu/~jdericks/BPE4/b4s1.pdf http://people.uwplatt.edu/~dalecki/newperspectives.pdf292 days 15 hours 16 minutes ago
China Laughed When It Saw How Cheap Solar Could Be Despite all the talk on this page about China going for nuke, they're actually doing more solar. 12 GW installed 2013. Anyone want to guess how many GW this year? http://www.businessinsider.com/china-laughed-when-it-saw-how-cheap-solar-could-be-2014-6292 days 15 hours 40 minutes ago
SOLAR PROVIDES PEAK POWER I have pointed out that solar power has a premium value because it reduces peak demand and it produces MWh at times when rates are the highest. Some people continue to make the absurd counter, "no it doesn't." I have explained this at length but these explanations tend to be buried in a lot of dialogue. This is an important point so I'm starting a thread on this with a chart. The chart is basically the CA ISO chart for JUN 5th showing "net demand," which is the demand after taking into account wind and solar. Since I am mainly talking about solar, I added some data to illustrate. (BTW, if the text is too small in the image, click on the image and then right click and select open in a new tab. Then view the image in the new tab). The historical peak is most critical. This determines how much generating capacity has to be available to the system. Increasing this entails great expense in infrastructure besides the generating capacity. The yellow line shows how much less all the non-solar generators have to produce to meet demand due to grid-connected commercial solar that has been installed. Yearly historic peaks always happen between 2pm and 5 pm on week days. This chart for Jun 5th is a typical example of a hot day... by no means the hottest, but typical. Some may complain for generalizing from CA ISO but this will be typical for most areas in the US except for the Pacific Northwest where they don't do much air conditioning. For 90+ percent of the US, the historical peak happens on a hot day in the late afternoon in July or August ... sometimes Jun or Sep. So, look at what happens with solar: at 5 pm we're getting over 80% of the power we were getting at the highest output around noon. The effect of solar is to off-set the peak by 3000 MW and shift the need for more power to later ... to 9pm. During these months (JUN, JUL, AUG) we're getting some solar all the way to 9pm. Here is something else that doesn't show up in these stats: Roof top solar and off-grid solar has the effect of lowering demand. The power being produced by these systems is not metered, but we know it's at least 2.5 GW by now. Unless they figure out how to meter energy production and collect all that data ... how with 100s of thousands of small systems, roof top solar will make demand appear to be lower and will shift the peak to 9pm. Peak MWh rates are about 3 times off-peak. A couple of other things ... We're just starting to see solar thermal with thermal storage. Crescent Dunes in NV will store energy for 24/7 operation, but they don't need to go that far to have major benefit. If new solar thermal is designed to at least keep running from 9pm to midnight, it will greatly reduce the need for all the other power plants. Wind helps greatly too, because it usually kicks up in the afternoon in the Spring and Summer and can generate 3-4 GW in the evening hours after the sun has gone down.... producing kWh costing 4.4 cents that the utility sells for 30 cents or more. Solar is looking better every day. Here is the chart for historical peak power in CA ISO http://www.caiso.com/Documents/CaliforniaISOPeakLoadHistory.pdf293 days 23 hours 59 minutes ago
I posted Hubbert's figures before, but I wanted to provide more detail on necessary updates. Hubbert publicly recanted his 1956 "go nuclear" projection. In 1996, he said "go solar." So, I think he would approve of these alterations. The solid red line is roughly drawn for nuclear capacity as built. The kink in the curve just before 1980 is for Three Mile Island. Figure 29 is for the US. Figure 30 is global. The percentage breakdown is my own rough prediction. YMMV. Obviously, the breakdown will vary greatly depending on location. For example, Brazil and Paraguay get a large percentage of their electricity from hydro (they get 100 TWh per year from a single dam... Itaipu produces more than 3 Gorges). Iceland is powered by geothermal.296 days 4 hours 17 minutes ago
Here are some real world energy costs. Note that the nuclear costs include all costs from construction to dismantling. Note that solar PV is anywhere from about 2X to 9X more expensive than nuclear. Costs in Euros per MWh Nuclear 59.8 Onshore wind 62-102 Solar PV 114-547 New gas or coal: 70-100 "The court, which was asked to update a previous report by a parliamentary committee, calculates the average cost of French nuclear power production over its current 40-year lifespan, from construction to dismantling." "The Court des Comptes, a quasi-judicial body, said in a report that production costs for the French utility's 58 French nuclear reactors had risen to 59.8 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) from 49.6 euros/MWh between 2010 and 2013." "Although nuclear production costs, according to the court, are not above the 62-102 euros/MWh for onshore wind and 114-547 euros for photovoltaic power estimated in a previous report, or the 70-100 euros for new gas- or coal-fired plants, the gap between them is closing noticeably." http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/edf-costs-idUKL6N0OC3XJ20140527297 days 11 hours 32 minutes ago
Could we build perpetual solar farms that produce cheap electricity? Forever? Absolutely. Solar is now the least expensive and best source of electric power there has ever been. A lot of minds are stuck in the era of non-renewable energy. Non-renewable energy plants tend to have a fixed life span. Nuclear is the worst, because at end-of-life, it doesn't just go away. They are given up to 65 years for decommissioning. For example, the Racho Seco nuclear plant in California has been closed for 25 years. It's still sitting there waiting for the next step in the decommissioning process. Coal fired power plants often run until they've burned up all the coal in a nearby mine. Then they pick up and leave -- and leave a ghost town behind. So, old-thinking people will always think in terms of the life of the solar farm. They think it must have an end-of-life just as all the others have. Worse yet, these "analysts" often understate the useful life of the panels -- claiming 20 yrs or less. But PV panels 30 years old or more are still working fine. Here's how to get a solar farm that uses very little dedicated land, where the owner could sell power at 4 cents per kwh and still make a fair 25 percent profit . And the farm could contine to generate power for decades, generation-after-generation, centuries, or even millennia. That is, forever... as long as it is maintained. And the fuel cost will always be the same: ZERO For this example, let's say the solar farm has one million square feet of solar collectors. It would be capable of maximum output of 14 megawatts, and have 47,620 300-watt panels. This would require about 112 acres. The panels could be installed in any number of ways, but suppose they're up out of the way on polls. The way, the only dedicated space is for the base of the polls. The land could be used for other things. This could be a normal farm where they grow things or make it available as grazing fields. If a farmer plans to grow crops that don't mind partial shading, the arrays could be spaced out accordingly. The solar farm could even be co-located with wind turbines. This type of hybrid farm could work well in the midwest -- Nebraska, Iowa, and so on. There's a small matter of getting the thing built in the first place, but let's assume the financing is in place and it gets built (would cost about $2 per watt or $28 million). How could this solar farm last forever? ------------------------------------ The basic idea is to continually swap out used panels for new ones. The swapped-out panels would then be re-sold. Assuming these are 300-watt panels, 21 sq ft each, the farmer would swap out an average of 4.4 per day -- probably do it at sunrise or sunset. This should only take a few minutes each day. The panels weigh about 50 pounds each, so this could be a one person job -- with the right tools. Figuring 10,956 days in 30 years, 4.4 panels per day, all of the panels will have been replaced. After 30 years, go back to the oldest panel, which is now 30 years old, and repeat. This 30-yr cycle could be repeated indefinitely, and the average age of the panels will be 15 years. After the capital cost has been amortized, the on-going cost of the electricity will only be operating and maintenance (O&M). Let's assume that the panels cost 47 cents per watt, and it's going to cost 3 cents per watt for labor to replace the panels. 4.4 panels will be 1320 watts, for $660. Your entire 14 megawatt farm would produce about 67 megawatt-hrs per day (assuming average of 20 percent capacity factor). So, daily panel replacements cost about $10 per megawatt-hr, or one penny per kwh. Add another cent for other hardware costs and another penny for soft costs (taxes, insurance, etc) and the farmer's cost (after intial plant amortization) is 3 cents per kwh. The farmer could sell the power for 4 cents and make a decent profit. Average retail cost for electricity is around 12 cents right now. However, solar is produced during peak hours and partial peak hours when people are using power the most. So, it could be worth more. Of course, if a lot of solar power is being produced all over, then power during the day will become cheaper. The cost could be lower depending on how the recycling works. Suppose the farmer gets 15 cents per watt for used panels. Those panels could go to a re-seller who sells them for 30 cents per watt (plus or minus depending on age). More solar farms could be built with used panels at lower cost. Over time, the solar farm started with used panels will wind up with the same mix of panels averaging 15 years old.  some assumptions example of panel -------------------- 300 watt 21 sq ft http://files.sharpusa.com/Downloads/Solar/Products/sol_dow_NDF4Q300.pdf average cost per watt 2014 USD .47 average labor cost per watt to swap .03 residual resale value $.15 per watt 8 acres per mw 112 acre farm 14 watts per sq ft average capacity factor 20 67.2 mwh / day 47,620 panels swap average 4.4 per day days in 30 yrs 10956 1320 watts per day swapped298 days 15 hours 30 minutes ago
Vogtle = unmitigated catastrophe Nuke fans brag about the AP1000 the lastest "advanced" LWR ... this is what it looks like in the real world: A TRAIN WRECK OF UNPARALLELED PROPORTION The estimated cost goes up every time I look at it. Latest is $20 billion. I'm going to take a wild guess and say $30 billion by the time all is done. In August 2008, it was originally estimated that Plant Vogtle reactors 3&4 would cost $14.3 billion and begin commercial operations in 2016 and 2017 respectively.2 Today, the estimate of the project’s cost has reached $15.5 billion and the reactors are projected to come online in 2018 and 2019 respectively. Pending lawsuits between project partners and the construction contractors could push the project’s final costs even higher to $16.5 billion." ************ As a result of the escalating construction costs and continued delays of the Plant Vogtle project, financial rating agencies are downgrading their assessment of the partners involved in the project: Standard and Poor’s downgraded the Outlook on Southern Company and Georgia Power’s credit ratings from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’ in May, 2013. Fitch Ratings downgraded the outlook on all of Oglethorpe Power Corporation’s bonds from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative’ in August, 2013. Moody’s has downgraded the outlook on Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia bonds from ‘Stable’ to ‘Negative.’ Goldman Sachs and Zacks Investment Research have rated Southern Company as a “sell.” Golden Sachs cited “accelerating capital spending on Vogtle nuclear project and ongoing litigation with the plant’s contractors” as well as the Kemper coal gasification plant and a GA Power rate case that has since resulted in a disappointing ruling for the company. Zacks pointed to weak share earnings, increased expenses, and high risks associated with the construction of reactors 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle. With the likelihood of additional delays and cost overruns, Zacks states “the project cost could easily end up around $20 billion.” http://www.taxpayer.net/images/uploads/downloads/TCS_Vogtle_LG_Fact_Sheet_-_Updated_Feb._2014.pdf298 days 19 hours 55 minutes ago
UNDERSTANDING THE DEPTH OF FAILURE OF THE NUCLEAR PROMISE The image copied here is from the last page of Marion King Hubbert's paper on NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE FOSSIL FUELS , in which he explains the age of fossil fuels is a blip on the map historically speaking. I recommend taking some time to study these figures from this important and influential document. In his 1956 presentation, he predicted that US oil production would peak around 1970. Oil company executives scoffed until 1970 rolled around and he turned out to be correct . With increasing demand and falling production, the US rapidly increased oil imports from the Middle East, which opened a large vulnerability in the US economy. Thus began a very expensive protracted military involvement in the region -- to "protect our vital interests" -- that continues to this day. When the 1973 oil embargo happened, gasoline shortages happened immediately. Angry people waited long hours to get gasoline, and gasoline prices went up -- and the price of everything went up. Inflation became a huge issue. Very few people at the time understood what had happened. It was certainly no surprise to Dr. Hubbert, nor would it have been a surprise to anyone who had read and understood his 1956 paper. Hubbert had given a very clear warning on the over-reliance on domestic crude oil, including a very accurate projection of when impacts would be felt. Hubbert showed, in 1956, that we needed to move away from oil addiction and rapidly scale up other sources. At the time, nuclear looked like the best option for large-scale energy conversion. Hubbert's credibility grew tremendously in the early 1970s after his prediction about US oil production turned out to be accurate. His work was the basis of President Nixon's call for 1000 nuclear power plants. Take a good look at Figure 29 for his projection of nuclear power. It shows us hitting 100 GW around year 2000. We actually scaled up more rapidly than he projected, but then peaked at 100 GW around 1990. If we had followed his curve, we would be at about 300 GW now, headed for 400 GW around 2025. Here's the thing that really wipes out his projection on nuclear: in the 1956 paper, he stated that, "In the subsequent discussion, it will be assumed that complete breeding will have become the standard practice within the comparatively near future." (see pg 31) Even though nuclear was scaling up faster than he projected, by the early 1970s he could see the massive problems with nuclear. Nuke wasn't going to work and a re-calibration of his recommendations was in order. By 1976 Hubbert was saying forget nuclear, go solar. The nuclear renaissance (really started by GW Bush in early 2000s) seems to embrace what Hubbert said in 1956, but ignores what he said later... and ignores what in fact has happened since Hubbert re-calibrated based on how nuke tech unfolded, and how solar tech has developed. People have trouble understanding how modern economies can run on energy from entirely renewable sources. You need to give it a little more thought. It can be done. Delaying the transition has already caused quite a bit of damage to our atmosphere and our economies. SUMMARY ---------------------------- There are two main things Hubbert could not have foreseen in 1956: First, it was widely assumed that nuclear breeder technology would be mastered. However, since then, breeder technology never worked and there is nothing on the horizon to indicate it will ever work economically. Secondly, solar cells for producing electricity were not available in 1956. The technology was known to be theoretically possible, but there were no factories producing solar cells. Instead of being at 300 GW, on our way to 400 GW in 2025, nuclear in the US stopped at 100 GW decades ago. Nuke in France stalled. Germany stalled. If the world was on track with Hubbert's 1956 projection, it should be at least 5 times the US... or about 1500 GW. Worldwide, instead of 1500 GW, the world has less than 400 GW capacity with an average output of less than 300 GW (nuclear output worldwide peaked in 2006 at just over 300 GW). In 1976, Hubbert said forget nuclear, go solar. Hubbert was right. Look at Figure 30 and replace the line labeled NUCLEAR POWER and replace it with SOLAR POWER . That's what can and should happen. ________________________________  http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf  Hubbert underestimated, slightly, the amount of oil and gas that would become economic to extract, however, this makes very little difference in the overall scale and timing. He predicted the peak could be as late as 1970 or as early as 1966. The actual peak was OCT 1970, around 10 million barrels per day. Production dropped to a low of less than 4 million barrels per day in SEP 2008. With oil at $100 per barrel, some new production opened up but this is just a wrinkle in the overall trend. Oil is going away. Some con artists like to make a chart from the the 2008 low and show how there is plenty of oil since it's been increasing year-after-year since the 2008 low. This is temporary. Oil production today is so expensive it is only prolonging our addiction. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=M  Watch Dr. Hubbert's 38 min presentation from 1976. So, in 1976, twenty years after he said go nuclear, he discusses problems with nuclear and says go solar. Toward the end, he shows a little fan powered by solar cells. Keep in mind that at that time, practically no one outside of the space program would ever have seen a solar cell up close. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6vXHPZ0GQU  You could also say renewable power or renewable energy. Most of it will be direct solar. Practically all of it will be direct or indirect solar (e.g., wind) except for some geothermal.305 days 6 hours 44 minutes ago
New record for solar energy production set on Sunday, broken on Monday. This is for the CA ISO area -- commercial grid connected systems. Add at least another 20,000 mwh for total in California to include grid-connected less than one megawatt, systems not in CA ISO area, and off-grid solar. We're getting more energy from solar than nuke (less than 55,000 mwh). Solar mwh increasing an average of about 50 mwh every day now, and the rate of increase is increasing.... "exponentially." Nuke cannot increase and is destined to disappear entirely.305 days 19 hours 8 minutes ago
The energy issue has created some strange bedfellows. The nuclear renaissance really got launched a decade ago by George W. Bush . Later, a few liberals have started mouthing "go nuclear." From the early 1980s on, it was liberals (hippies, even) leading the charge for solar. In the early going, it was all off-grid. On-grid solar only got going in the mid-to-late 1980s. Now, guess who loves solar? The far right wing. Survialists. Tea Partiers. And they prefer their solar off-grid. Hippies in the 1970s had a song about going to live in the hills. Now who is singing that song?  Tea Party is coming out against Koch Bros efforts to derail solar. why do you suppose that is? _______________  http://investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigations/nuclear-energy-lobbying-push/story/nuclear-renaissance-began-bush/  Here are a few articles about Tea Party love of solar http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/04/oklahoma_sb_1456_why_the_tea_party_is_fighting_for_solar_power.html http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-tea-party-leader-explains-why-shes-teaming-up-with-the-sierra-club-to-push-for-solar-power/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2013/07/16/behind-the-tea-party-push-for-solar-in-georgia/306 days 4 hours 56 minutes ago
Going low carbon. Essential questions. 1. What’s it going to cost me? 2. Are the additional costs of wind and solar justified by the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions? 3. Why are the costs per KWH of wind and solar so much higher, and the benefits not much different, than the other three low-carbon alternatives? 4. How can we be sure that a new low-carbon plant will replace a high-carbon coal plant rather than some other low-carbon plant? 5. What does this paper have for policymakers interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions at a reasonable cost? http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/05/20-low-carbon-wind-solar-power-frank307 days 20 hours 35 minutes ago
Fear of our own extinction is reasonable. Acting brutally toward each other as we approach the extinction is just ugly. We are better than that. What kind of Ending of human existence will result from the energy choices we make now?308 days 9 hours 37 minutes ago
X-men's out my friends! Mutants are probably the most energy efficient and energy dense beings on earth. Better than any fusion, fission, fossil fuel or renewable power plant. Just imagine: give magneto 3 meals a day and he can perpetually use his magnetic fields to give you unlimited electrical power. As long as he's awake and agrees to help humans that is... Sunspot - ultimate heat generator Pyro - never burn out Phoenix - nuff said, telekinetic, telepathically insane. Storm - Endless wind power with 100% capacity factor, or better yet - lightning energy Quicksilver - you'll never RUN out of energy again If only we had them here, we probably won't need to worry about energy ever again hahaha. Enjoy your weekend!309 days 14 hours 1 minute ago
Nuclear vs. Solar. With solar you use 242 times the area for the same amount of energy. Energy density counts! "The small nuclear is capable of producing 242 times the electricity per unit land. Small nuclear is as staggering in scale as large solar, just for the opposite reason." http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl314 days 10 hours 58 minutes ago
While nuke power growth has been negative since 2006, solar power growth is rapid and exponential. Just now, power from new renewables in the CA ISO area broke 10,000 megawatts for the first time.... just thought you'd like to know!315 days 5 hours 7 minutes ago
Recently, four of the world’s leading climate scientists released an open letter to world environmental policy makers urging the development and... Read more.
Most of the afflictions wrongly attributed to nuclear power can rightly be attributed to coal. I was struck by this thought when I saw the graphics... Read more.
There are limits to what one can cover in 90 minutes, and some viewers may feel slighted by neglect or oversight of their favorite pro- or... Read more.