U.K. takes down data showing footprint of nuclear vs. “renewables”

By |2013-11-02T14:17:16+00:00November 2nd, 2013|CFACT Europe|695 Comments

The U.K. plans to invest in new nuclear power following France’s lead, but breaking ranks with Germany and the big Green pressure groups.

The U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change published this infographic, but then took it down.  Businesses reaping billions in subsidies from solar and wind deemed it “unhelpful.”

The facts according to the U.K. government?

Acres required to power 6 million homes:

Wind 250,000
Solar 130,000
Nuclear 430

The Daily Telegraph calls it “the infographic the U.K. government doesn’t want you to see.”

The U.K. should not only want you to see this, it should add in coal and gas as well.


  1. FrankSW November 2, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    Not verified but someone has pointed out this 430 acres include that used while building the plant, when complete the Hinkley Point footprint will fall to 160 acres

    • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 11:38 AM

      So it is smaller, who cares when nuclear cost more than Solar (of all flavors) and creates nuclear waste that must be dealt with for generations!


      In short, nuclear energy transforms ratepayers into nuclear energy slaves!

      • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:14 PM

        Oh yippee! A blog. What a wonderfully viable source for reliable information. Please stop polluting the thread with your politics.

        • CaptD September 26, 2014 at 1:33 PM

          Joe Dick – No politics mentioned, just a little reality for all those that consider using ☢ is a good deal for anyone except the Utility and its shareholders! BTW: If you think the France and China are bending over backwards to help the UK Utilities provide energy are great prices then you must be receiving some form of Nuclear Payback*

          * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

          Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

          • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 3:50 PM

            The link you provided was a blog, lacking in scientific content, and chock full of opinion.

            I support nuclear energy, and I receive no support from the industry. Therefore your claim to that end is at best completely wrong, an in the end is libelous. You should mind what you type.

            Urban dictionary as a reference. How quaint.

            Meanwhile, again I ask: Do you have a degree in science? Engineering? Medicine? Economics perhaps? If not, yappy little dogs should stay on the porch; you don’t have the chops to run with the big dogs.

            Type less, read more. Mind your baseless accusations.

          • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 4:38 PM

            Now, with respect to your concerns regarding cancer from radiation, fine. Solar panels involve extremely toxic carcinogens in their production, and contain these in and of themselves. Gallium arsenide, is but one of these.

            All products of high technology depend on complex chemical and atomic interactions to which life as we know it has not evolved tolerance, resistance or immunity. To blithly state, as you have, nuclear = evil and solar = purity is either hypocracy or ignorance of the highest order.

            To delve you you depths of distrust in a manner that treats both equally, which would you prefer? Three Mile Island or Love Canal? My answer is neither, and both, if managed properly, need not lead to such disasters.

            Meanwhile, nuclear powerplants are profitable, and harvest enough energy to make multiple copies of themselves; but I have yet to see a solar panel go off the grid with its own product.

            • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:30 AM

              Here is an excellent 3 minute video on radiation dangers/non dangers from someone NOT in the nuclear industry. She holds to the LNT line but she puts it into perspective.

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:56 PM

              Why did Keawaunee did in a 14 cents per kwh retail enfvironment

              Bye bye Yankee, and good riddance

                • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:03 PM

                  @investigator, ya sure, I read everything that Conca writes…it is a hilarious simplistic playbook of the Bronto nuke industry. His shite was awesomely debunked too.

                  • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:43 PM

                    Could you provide the sources, easy to make claims, more difficult to back them up.
                    Perhaps it is just “shite” to you when the information doesn’t comport with your world view.

                    • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 12:59 PM

                      steveo, given your scientific background, I am a little surprised that you would direct me to a link whose sole contribution to this discussion is comments by unknown persons of unknown qualifications…hardly convincing.

                      As to the Forbes article, here was my response to Paul Gunter, renewable energy guru and champion of anti-nuclearism:

                      “Paul, can you explain why the phenomenon Mr. Cooper described in his article promising that electric rates won’t rise as a result of VY closing didn’t occur when San Onofre shut down? Just a few weeks after the shut down was announced, the public was informed that their rates would rise, and rise they did. Also, old natural gas plants were fired up to help replace the generation thrown away when San Onofre shut down. Is this fine with you? Are you interested in reducing fossil fuel dependence or only anti-nuclear?”

                      Others pointed out the weakness of the argument that reducing generation available, ie., because of shutting down VY, will somehow reduce energy costs. What? A shortage of supply = less costs? I think you would agree that despite Cooper’s convoluted logic on this, which admittedly may appeal to those who are against nuclear power, is so weak as to hold no water. The proof is in the pudding.

                • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 10:45 AM

                  The solar panel waste article says those disposal emissions are compensated for in 3 months, and solar is still a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas. It’s the best option short of local fusion and fission.

          • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 11:16 PM

            Wow. Aren’t you proud of your kind? You commented on Cleantechnica.com’s website and I thought maybe I could do there what you’ve done here. Nope! I’m banned from commenting on an article written by:

            Cynthia Shahan is an Organic Farmer, Classical Homeopath, Art Teacher, Creative Writer, Anthropologist, Natural Medicine Activist, Journalist, and mother of four unconditionally loving spirits, teachers, and environmentally conscious beings who have lit the way for me for decades.

            Wow. That’s telling. A website that caters to solar power and I’m banned from discussing anything? You with your all anti-nuclear agenda and you can’t say who you are, and I cant comment on a website that worships Elon Musk.

            Let’s just think about how deep that rabbit hole goes…

            Charles Manson much? 🙂

            • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:27 AM

              They banned me as well, at least I’m pretty sure it was cleantechnica. First time I posted, and I made a number of posts, I was booted pronto. No diversity of thought there.

          • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:50 PM

            Is the urban dictionary where you get your info from? It seems to be your favorite post, besides those bogus studies you like to hoodwink the unwary with.
            Those who oppose nuclear because of their philosophy, automatically support coal. Nuclear saves lives by NOT burning coal.
            So, Capt, care to comment on the fact that Soviet nukes (formerly aimed at us in America) were reprocessed and sold to America to use in our nuclear plants providing 10% of the electricity this country used? Was that a good thing? 10% from Soviet nukes, what is the grand total of solar and wind now?

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 2:15 PM

        Moses much? “Let my people go!” Where are the solar powered solar panel factories?

        You still haven’t answered my question: If it was renewable energy, they’d be first off the grid.

        Similarly, you haven’t answered my questions regarding your education. Science degree? Engineering degree? Economics? Chemistry? Medicine?

        You have accused all who disagree with you to be in the pay of nuclear power. Who pays your salary? Do you even have a career? Are you a shill?

        And you have yet to address the toxic agents and carcinogens associated with solar panel production…

        You have enough time to sit around and wait for your computer to go “ping!” after not having commented on this for over a year that it really does beg the question of who you are and why you are so full of zealously. No, you probabably went find that on the “Urban Dictionary” website yet in the way I mean it: you are zealous about being jealous of those that take the time to genuinely understand things.

        I pity people like you because you’re small. Its not your stature physically in life; it’s because you’re little in the mind. I recommend a bag of popcorn, a DVD of Cary Grant in “People Will Talk”, and a mirror to look yourself in the eye periodically throughout. If you don’t get it after that, you’re not ignorant, you’re just plain stupid – in which case, stand away from the internet access. Just walk away.

        • CaptD September 29, 2014 at 8:31 PM

          JoeDick – Solar R&D is still just getting started and in the time it takes to build even one new nuclear power plant Solar (of all flavors) will have evolved to the point that the nuclear energy will be far to expensive!
          Try sticking to the topic and leave out all the other comments, they are not only incorrect but a waste of time.

          • Joe Dick September 29, 2014 at 10:00 PM

            Ah, just getting started? Wrong. Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow. Its mature. I know. The Missile Defense Agency hired me as a consultant, as has Lockheed and Alenia regarding their abilities and use.

            If I told you more, as the saying goes, I’d have to kill you. If you went to real sources of information, like, um, I dunno, lemme see… College! instead of Wikipedia and new-age websites for your information, you’d have a clue about that.

            Now take your lithium and quit bullying people that have their shit together on websites the world over with your ill-informed ramble.

            • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM

              Joe Dick RE Your statement:

              “Older than the hills, and the technology is pretty much at the limits that physics, chemistry, and engineering allow.”

              That sounds much more like all those pushing new nuclear and/or Thorium reactors both of which are not yet proven despite what the nuclear cheerleaders say!

              BTW: New battery storage tech IS just getting started:

              Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory May Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says

              Many within the electric car industry believe that $100 per kilowatt-hour will be the tipping point for elec . . .

              http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094102_teslas-battery- .

              and There is yet another non Tesla BIG Factory going into production in Germany.

              • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:34 AM

                Oh hooray! Another news article that is little more than a press release. Gee whiz, they’re saying they will do a thing. Great. Call me from Missouri: Show me when it’s done. Until then you’re just a lot of hot air.

                • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:44 PM

                  Spot on! I think I’m from Missouri. CaptDishonest is from space.

              • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:23 PM

                You have no idea of what you are saying.
                A Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory. The powerful Green Party in Germany got it shut down permanently with a political campaign based on lies – but who cares, they know they cannot be wrong, so lies don’t count.
                But someone should have cared, because Germany is now in serious trouble with its energy policy because its huge outlay on wind power is not providing enough energy, the Greens won’t let them build nuclear, so now they are having to re-start and even BUILD……..coal-fired power stations, just to keep their industry going and the lights on.
                When these ignorant and self-regarding environmental groups start getting us all into trouble with their mad fantasies, it’s time to shut them out of policy-making discussions – for good.

                • CaptD October 31, 2014 at 6:46 PM

                  RE “Siemens -designed nuclear reactor ran very successfully on thorium for around a couple of years before powering down to repair a mechanical problem to a non-nuclear related accessory.”

                  If it was so wonderful, why did Siemens not just build they in other Countries?

                  Could it be that it was not anything close to being a commercially viable reactor?

                  • Peter October 31, 2014 at 8:26 PM

                    As usual, you avoid having to accede to an argument which clearly disproves your case by ranting on about new irrelevant claims as false as your original argument. It’s impossible to have a reasoned debate with you.
                    Your original claim was that “new nuclear and /or thorium reactors……are not yet proven”. When I present evidence that the thorium reactor is proven, you do not accept that you were wrong, you just spout more irrelevant and equally false rubbish.
                    In fact, many organisations round the world have bought licences from Siemens and a few have built successful demonstration reactors as proofs-of-principle as a basis for national power systems.
                    Why not take a few months off to really study the range of available nuclear technologies and the advantages, disadvantages and availability of possible nuclear fuels.

                  • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:08 AM

                    If solar is so great, how come it provides so LITTLE power in this country? Could it be it is not the panacea you believe it to be? They have been working on this for 40 years, where is it? Anybody seen the solar power yet?

                    • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:50 PM

                      My bill went from 600 a month to 17 using PV solar….

                      over 30 years it pencils out to 2.94 cents per kwh

                    • Investigator January 4, 2015 at 10:57 PM

                      Come back in 30 years and we’ll check those figures, and besides, what home owner makes an investment that takes 30 years to pay off?
                      So, because YOU have the money to install solar and the poor do not, the subsidies you received are like a regressive tax. The poor help pay for your subsidy through the paying of taxes, while they receive NO benefit from your subsidy.
                      Just how much did the government kick in to supply you with power? Are you sure those panels will last 30 years? What do you do with those panels when they lose their efficiency, ie., how do you dispose of them? Think of the millions of people who would have to have roof top solar so equal the amount of generation from one dual unit nuclear power plant and what do we do with all those panels full of toxic heavy metals?

                    • steveo77 January 4, 2015 at 11:03 PM

                      The payback is 2.5 years, your talking points are already stale. they lose .25% per year.

                      Your metric of number of roof related to a $17B Vogtle farce is a no starter.

                      My subsidy is a reduction in the tax I pay. I generated $164,000 in tax revenue for govs last year…..and you bitch that I take $20,000 of my own money?

          • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:24 AM

            I am sticking to the topic. So should you: Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? There are none because it would never work. If you’re anti-nuke, fine; but don’t sell snake oil as a “solution”. We get it: CaptD is anti-nuke. Fine. You’re entitled to your opinion. A lot of us don’t agree with you, and we’ll continue to support clean nuclear energy.

            • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 7:16 PM

              Joe Dick I guess you did not get the memos:

              Tesla/SolarCity will build a new

              major solar panel factory in NY State


              Tesla’s Battery Gigafactory Will Achieve Nirvana: $100 Per Kilowatt-Hour, Report Says http://disq.us/8kbwdg


              They (not Tesla) are also building a major battery factory in Germany!


              Since you might like Nuclear-News:

              International Energy Agency waking up to economy and efficiency of solar energy http://shar.es/1aFaGs

              • Joe Dick October 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM

                I guess you never studied physics or chemistry or engineering:

                1. Gee, you can build solar panels.

                2. No, solar panels don’t live long enough to make copies of themselves.

                3. Tesla’s solar panel factory will not be powered powered with it’s own product, will not be off the grid (see items 1 and 2).

                4. Tesla’s “Gigafactory” (…wait …trying …not …to …laugh ….BWAHAHAHAHAHA …whew …”Gigafactory” ..lol …okay) has yet to achieve this, and like most Musk promises is highly overstated.

                5. Germany too? Good for them. I’m so happy.

                Gee, you base all your sources on Eco-drivel websites and blogs …wait …trying …again …not …to …BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

                Wow. You are a real trip, man. You are a real trip. Get out of your mother’s basement much?

                • CaptD October 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM

                  Joe Dick Where to begin…

                  RE: “Musk promises is (sic) highly overstated”

                  Musk is so fr ahead of the power curve that he does not need to answer to guys like you that are stuck in the nuclear is so wonderful 1950’s…

                  Battery storage will only increase the shift to Solar (of all flavors), since the Utilities are pricing themselves out of the marketplace with “old school” energy like nuclear that will be too expensive in 20 to 30 years.

                  • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:04 PM

                    I never said Musk has to answer to me, CaptSPIN. Musk has to answer to the limits of physics, and those of that get that are laughing our butts off.

                    • CaptD October 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

                      Joe Dick When you and/or your “friends”(“and those of that get that”) become tech Billionaires, I bet people will start to listen to what you are saying, until then Zzzzzzz.

                    • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

                      Wow. What a repost. Is that what it takes for you to respect a person. So you can be bought! And he didn’t even send you a check. You a funny man!!!!

                    • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 8:31 PM

                      In other words, you want a billionaire to pretend to save your butt so you can continue to kiss his nether regions in a subservient repose for accomplishing nothing but scraping pennies off, a transaction at a time with Pay Pal?

                  • Joe Dick October 3, 2014 at 6:21 PM

                    Hey, you never did get back to me on those numbers I responded with from the US Energy Information Agency and The Wall Street Journal, demonstrating that with subsidies, solar is almost a buck eighty a kWh, but nuclear is about two and a half cents per kWh. So solar is what, about eighty times more expensive? Good luck with that. Thorium rocks! 🙂

                  • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:49 AM

                    Seriously, you don’t get that Musk makes money on carbon credits? Pencil it out. Its not the cars…

                  • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:56 PM

                    Yea, Musk is stuck in the 1970s pie in the sky solar is our savior. What happened to that solar? Can’t make the sun shine during the night? Awe, nuclear works day or night, wind or no wind, it is cheap, safe, reliable, doesn’t pollute, no GHGs, it is our best energy source currently available.
                    Capt., what did you say the capacity factor for solar was? 20%? Nuclear is at 90%. You sure are barking up the wrong tree. If you weren’t so dishonest, I’d ask you to join me in supporting our best energy source.

                  • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 9:27 PM

                    Nuke is too expensive now, they are dropping like flies

            • Investigator November 1, 2014 at 11:59 PM

              Joe, the Capt. has trouble with the truth. He posts bogus studies he hopes nobody will catch him on, then when he’s caught, he simply slinks off to another site to post the same crap. He is absolutely shameless.

          • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:41 PM

            More excuses for solar. We’ve been hearing this crappola for 40 years from the likes of Ralph Nader et al. Wheres the beef?
            Expend your efforts making solar power a reality, not attacking nuclear. Convey that message to your handlers in FOE, perhaps they may decide to contribute for the better of this nation instead of the reverse.

            • CaptD October 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM

              Nuclear has “attacked” US by not living up to their Industries “almost free SAFE” energy generation they promised us when they pushed it usage, instead it has turned out to be nothing but a Industry moneymaker that shifts all costs to their ratepayers who are “enslaved” because they have no choice but to pay for over priced ☢ Energy, then their is the cost of Long term Waste disposal and possible RISK of Fukushima to consider.

              Ask The Japanese people how wonderful N☢ is longterm.

              • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM

                CaptD, you have stepped into your own doodoo.
                Fukushima was NOT a nuclear catastrophe.. The reactors did not run up to a nuclear explosion even though the plant electricity supply failed and stopped the coolant pumps..
                The plant should never have been built on a geological fault but even when an earthquake and a tsunami wrecked the plant, the built-in safe design prevented a nuclear explosion..

                • CaptD October 31, 2014 at 6:50 PM

                  Ha Ha Ha

                  I guess you don’t consider the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster a nuclear disaster, funny the Japanese people sure do!

                  BTW: Any idea where the 3 missing reactor corium(s) are that are helping pollute the Pacific Ocean with all the highly ☢ water they are using to try and keep them cool?

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:54 PM

                  ??????????? are you freakin serious? Get the facts, at least 3 meltdowns, at least 3 explosions and at least reactor 3 was a moderated prompt criticality, aka nuclear explosion.


              • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:05 AM

                What a liar! Yea, ask the Chinese how they liked their river polluted by the local solar panel construction company.

                Or here with ecological disaster caused by wind turbine blade manufacturing.

                Ask T Boon Pickens about wind power where as he stated “I lost my ass in wind power.”


              • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:51 PM

                Agreed, nuklear sucks more than the pronuke pimps on this board.

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:20 AM

            Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this crap since the 1970s don’t tell me this “still just getting started” baloney. Took them 40 years to get started? How long did it take France to ramp up its nuclear program? France builds 30 or 40 nuclear power plants and in that time solar is just getting its pants on. Yea, come back in 20 years, solar will have its shoes on then.

            • CaptD November 3, 2014 at 12:57 PM

              Ha Ha Ha

              Better take another look, France (whose EDF nuclear industry is partially owned by the Gov’t.) is now even scaling back new French nuclear and is having problems funding decommissioning the one they have, which has required them to add an extra decommissioning tax to try and help pay the ever increasing bills.

              Those Countries downwind from France are now worried that France is extending aged reactors usage too far and that could cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima in Europe!

              • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM

                CaptD I think you are wasting your time here, these gollums chasing their precious are lost for all causes.

                • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:30 PM

                  Please CaptDishonest, take the clarifier’s word for it. You cannot hoodwink the audience here and your bogus studies won’t fly. Guess you’ll have to move on to greener and more gullible audiences.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM

            “… just getting started…”
            Just getting started? We’ve been hearing this solar fantasy since the 1970’s. Quit making lame excuses for solar’s failure to live up to the hype or the expensive we lavish on it.
            What do we do with all those solar panels when they lose their efficiency?

            • CaptD January 3, 2015 at 12:40 PM

              Solar panels are lasting far longer than expected and like everything else (dry soon if not already) they will be recycled all without any radioactive waste or DANGER.

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 8:23 PM

        Seriously? You pounce within hours relative to your year off from this discussion. Engage m in discussion, prove you thesis, and bring your frontal lobes and your ballsy attitude to the party. My name is Joe Dick, and amongst the many things I’ve done to improve the world is to lay my cards and information on the world-wide table that is the internet by accepting Scientific American’s challenge to write a on their site, despite the name. I

        Instead of running away, stand up like a man an defend your “position” whatever it may be. With all due respect to those who must be witness to this, your intrusion, and my now response to it, you are an intellectual pussy.

        You have an argument and real data to support it? Bring it.

        To go your attitude one better, meet me, online. I’m sure the folks ’round here can arrange a proper debate. A suppusedly unknown punk like you shouldn’t have a thing to loose!

        To use the vernacular, “C’mon bitch! Get in the game!”. I am sick to death of pansy ass queers (hey queer means strange, sorry about your luck) saying shit they cannot back up. Go read ” Helium Hokum ” and quit taking the easy way out.

      • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:24 PM

        By the way, still waiting for your response in any level of detail; and you do know, one can readily chase your other commentary down an make you look a fool. So again, rise to the intellectual challenge. You said I was in the employ of the nuclear industry; I want everyone to see you as you are: in your mama’s basement or as a paid-for toll.

        Bring it, you self-serving cunt. (Apologies to the viewers.)

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:45 AM

        Oh look, do respond to this! How is it that solar costs 82 cents per kilowatt-hour with subsidies of 90 cents on top of that for $1.72 per, and most of us pay less than a tenth of that, and would pay even less if we weren’t paying for one of your favorite causes. Get paid to propaganda much, you nameless f?

        • CaptD October 15, 2014 at 2:59 PM

          Nuclear and Coal are the kings of subsidies, when cradle to grave costs are included, nice try, peddle your Nuclear Baloney* (NB)

          * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+Baloney elsewhere!

          • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 3:19 PM

            LOL. Solar subsidies are 90 cents per kilowatt-hour and cost $1.72 per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear and Coal pay for themselves. Nuclear is the cheapest form of energy generation we have.

            I gave you the references and asked the question multiple times. When you finally do respond, you’re the one that resorts to name-calling.

            The information I provided is not “nuclear baloney”. Until you can carry on an enlightened discussion instead of spewing propaganda, why don’t you just shut the hell up and go the hell away? I’m laughing! At you!

            “You are a fluke of the universe.
            You have no right to be here.
            And whether you can hear it or not,
            The universe is laughing behind your back.”

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM

              hey shit for brains….Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii, nuclear is in the 62 to 92 cent range depending on how you handle long term storage.

              You got game, bring it….with facts and links….


              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:56 PM

                You call that link factual? It is crap! Considering the huge subsidies to solar, if it is so great, why isn’t everybody jumping on the band wagon?
                Why is Ivanpah Solar Power Plant doing so poorly and burning NG more than 4 times what they initially claimed they would be doing? It is another solar LOSER!

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 9:28 PM

                  It is not crap, this is real data.

                  Why lie about Ivanpah…..their NG usage is 60% more, spread out over 4 hours……so you lie….to protect your “precious”, god save you.

                  PS everyone is jumping on the solar bandwagon….hence the need for the nuke pimps to attack solar, got it, user

                  • Investigator January 4, 2015 at 10:06 PM

                    Yea, and they claimed they would only need to burn NG for an hour. 4 X 1 = 60% in your book? Not a math major are you.

                    Seen this Chinese city polluted by solar panel manufacturing…and the pollution is just from normal operations, no titanic natural disasters required.


                    How about the wind turbine blade manufacturing pollution? Would you like to turn our US cities into this?






                    What are these wind company executives trying to hide? Seems wind driven profits, almost wholly from subsidies, trump transparency and the environment.

                    The solar panel manufacturing executives are just as evasive.




                    I was NOT initially against wind and solar power, but the dishonesty from their promoters, like CaptDishones here, have been driving me away from the UNreliables.

                    • steveo77 January 4, 2015 at 10:39 PM

                      Yo asshat, read the resources, they applied for variance to buy 60% more Natty. got it? They thought they were going to burn 1 EFL hour, now they are 60% above that.

                      troll ye be

                    • CaptD January 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM

                      Spot On Comment.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:03 PM

                      Did you forget the part about:

                      “for the eight-month period from January through August, its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.”

                      or this:

                      “They added that “auxiliary boilers typically need to operate an average of approximately 4.5 hours a day during startup (an increase from 1 hour daily average originally expected).”

                      or here:

                      “BrightSource can burn a total of 1,575 million standard cubic feet of natural gas every year. To get a sense of that volume, an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant might be expected to produce about 200,000 MWh from 1,575 mmcf of gas, according to the EIA.”

                      or here:

                      “The article noted that the trio of Ivanpah owners had sought extensions on repaying their loans as they waited to receive a cash grant from the U.S. Treasury worth 30 percent of the plant’s cost…”

                      or here:

                      “That relatively small output, combined with the project’s $2 billion price tag, could no doubt hurt all three Ivanpah owners.”

                      or here:

                      “Power tower projects in the U.S. have been falling by the wayside; most recently, BrightSource shelved plans to build a single-tower, 500-megawatt plant in Palen, California with Abengoa, despite having waged a lengthy campaign to get the project approved. For now at least, there seems little appetite for such giant projects among the California utilities that were being counted on to buy their power.”

                      CaptDishonest can comment on this last one in respect to his mantra of “solar of all flavors.”

                      or here:

                      The Mojave Desert plant, built with the aid of a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee…its three units generated 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. That’s roughly one-quarter of the annual 1 million-plus megawatt-hours that had been anticipated.

                      All this doesn’t paint a pretty picture of Ivanpah. I am for what works regardless of the source. However, I have consistently seen solar fantasy folks pushing our energy policy toward solar BEFORE it has proven itself. Indeed, that is precisely why FORMER anti-nukes wised up and left the solar fantasy for nuclear reality. For anti-nukes who may be reading this, remember, the makers of Pandora’s Promise, who were leaders in anti-nuclear community, were where you are now; perhaps some day soon you will be where they are.

                    • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 10:16 PM

                      The makers of Pandora Promise are lying manipulating asshats. They should be tried for a crime against humanity.

                      NUke lies,Nukes blows up and covers up. Nuke has a firm track history of failure.

                      When you combine humans and nuke you have a recipe for disaster.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:02 PM

                      Take a deep breath steveo, no need for hyperventilating. Did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong? They believed in the solar fantasy, just like you. They discovered that what they had formerly believed, was NOT true.

                    • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:13 PM

                      Not true, Iv guy, 3 cents per kWH with tax credits….if you make money to pay tax, you have to pay less.

                    • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 11:35 PM

                      So, did you watch the documentary or are you only repeating what you’ve heard from solar executives and faux environmentalists? If you have seen it, where are these former anti-nukes going wrong?

                    • steveo77 January 8, 2015 at 7:14 PM

                      By supporting nuke, or yeah….and by pretending to present a balanced opinion, and then falling into all the classic lies of nuke 93 of them by my count.

                    • Michael Mann August 23, 2015 at 6:16 AM

                      steveo77/PacE/NukePro/Frank Energy and whatever other alias you are using today, using the same profanity tips people off who you really are, that and the fact you tend to send people to your personal website.. Avast ye, think I’ve located the one attempting to deceive people here… Maybe the fact you sell solar installations may be influencing your viewpoint, could that be why you accuse others of having ulterior motives? Is it a thought out tactic to accuse others in an attempt to avoid suspicion, or is it just an assumption that if you do it, everyone must be doing it?

                    • PacE August 24, 2015 at 4:50 PM

                      Wow a motivated troll, replying to comments from 8 months ago.

                      Liars don’t deserve politeness, I’ll go all blanch on you.

                  • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:08 PM

                    I think you better stop drinking “FLUORIDE”

                  • David Whitmore January 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM

                    “… Solar pencils out at 3 cents per kWH in Hawaii… ”

                    You neglect to mention that most of the folks in Hawai’i with personally-owned solar panels on their homes are not allowed to connect their homes to the solar panels (already on their roofs) because the State-owned electric power company forbids them to. The latest excuse is that the digital power meters can’t function properly when the home owner is generating more electricity than they use.

                    Many folks (in the 48 continental States) that I know are checking out home solar panels. And, after having to spend tens of $1000s to have it installed, it turns out that they will save approximately $20 a month off their electric power bill.
                    Fantastic! Right?

                    Lest we not forget Spain; that Solar power plant our fearless leader has pushed the utility companies to model their own construction of… It is going bankrupt, or went bankrupt; and is causing even more disruption to the faltering Spanish economy. Is that the kind of successful Solar Power System we need here?

              • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 12:34 AM

                Well, there’s an intelligent way to address someone in a conversation. And I see that you chose to use a .blogspot as a source; that’s pretty reliable. I’ll stick with the Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/09/23/stop-subsidizing-solar-power/ Apparently your pencil needs sharpening. Solar gets 96 cents per kWh in subsidies, so if solar in Hawaii as you suggest costs 3 cents per kWh net, the real cost would be 3 cents + 96 cents = 99 cents per kWh.

                • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 12:02 PM

                  You really are a dick. Read the data, or just spew ad hominems………….I know your choice

                  The data shows that in Hawaii solar gets a total 65% tax credit. That means that is the remainder is 3cents, that the 65% presents a 6 cents subsidy. Solar with no subsidies is then 9 cents, and it stays at 9 cents for 30 years.

                  And yes people are flocking to it.

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 9:24 PM

                    Oh, now there is a truly intelligent response! I’m a “dick”. ROFLMAOCDBIGQ! Oh, in case you need a full translation, “rolling on floor laughing collecting dust bunnies in great quantities”. Try again, “Clarifier”. “Clarifier”. Wow. How… No, wait… no… Muahhhahahahhhahahahhahahahah.

                    Okay, try again, and please, use some intelligence. (Like that’s going to happen! HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAahhhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhhahahah!

                  • Joe Dick January 8, 2015 at 4:30 PM

                    Well, I provided a source with my data. Forbes, which backed up their data with sources.

                    If anyone is spewing anything here, it’s you. No sources for your numbers.

                    And gee, you still have my family name in your mouth. You must really like that.

                  • greenthinker2012 January 17, 2015 at 5:27 PM

                    You call him a “dick” and “shit for brains” and then complain about ad hominem attacks?!?

            • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:06 PM

              Yes unfortunately we have these “Political correct” Bafoons, who watch too much Jewivision, The slave makers,

            • Brian Donovan September 22, 2015 at 4:39 PM

              Nuclear is the most expensive. Nuclear cant’ run one second without gov protection from liability.

              Where does solar get 90 cents? LOL!

              The universe is laughing in your face.

              • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 7:40 PM

                You’re right. Solar doesn’t get 90¢ per kilowatt-hour. It gets 96¢. http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-258B-905

                • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:10 PM

                  Sure it is. where? your document say nothing of the sort. At least the referenced one.

                  In fact, why don’t you read the comments to your link. They point out the logical errors the article made and you too.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:34 PM

                    Yawn. Demonstrate the errata, don’t claim it exists. Show me how you calculate the subsidies per kilowatt-hour. I dare ya. Or is that beyond your ability, lad?

                • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:16 PM

                  BTW, in no way shape or form did they get a subsidies that was base on their KWH produced, that was 96 cents or anything like that.

                  You see, you lied, you try to deceive, and the WSJ helped.

                  Joe Dick, you live down to your name, yet again.

                  • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 8:29 PM

                    What a witty riposte! I am utterly defeated by your making fun of my name – not!

                    If you follow the links, it all leads back to Department of Energy data, and behind that the GAO. Sorry about your luck! Hate to cloud your issues with the facts!

                    • Brian Donovan September 24, 2015 at 8:33 PM

                      Just list the reference., It’s not there. THE DOE is the old atomic energy commission and still 90% nuclear.

                      go ahead, you linked, you data is not there.

                    • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:28 PM

                      Try reading, and applying some basic math skills.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:31 PM

                    Sorry about your luck. Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour produced are exactly what they say they are: Subsidies paid per kilowatt-hour. Sorry for you that you can’t get a simple thing like that.

                  • Joe Dick September 28, 2015 at 7:59 PM

                    Pity you don’t pay attention to the new posts.

              • Joe Dick September 24, 2015 at 7:56 PM

                Make that 96.8¢ per kilowatt-hour.

                Energy Source Subsidy per kwh
                Coal $0.0006
                Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $0.0006
                Nuclear $0.0031
                Renewables $0.0154
                Biomass Power $0.0020
                Geothermal $0.0125
                Hydroelectric $0.0008
                Solar $0.9680
                Wind $0.0525


                • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:37 AM

                  Your link divides subsidies by 1 year of solar pv system KWH that will produce by 30 years. so the real number is 3 cents. ops.

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:27 PM

                    The information provided is clear. 96¢ paid per kilowatt hour produced.

                • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:42 AM

                  BTW, did you know you link it so a bunch climate deniers?

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:24 PM

                    Write complete sentences much? Yikes! LOL

                  • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 9:12 PM

                    Have another deep draw from that bong. Watch the pretty bubbles filled with smoke. Now hold it in. Hold it! Try not to cough! Okay, now exhale and try writing that sentence again. It will be even more spectacular, I’m sure. For us, not you.

                  • Brian Donovan September 27, 2015 at 12:22 AM

                    Notice the nonsense reply.

                  • Joe Dick September 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM

                    Climate deniers? Do you know anyone that doesn’t think there’s a climate? I certainly don’t.

                • Brian Donovan October 1, 2015 at 9:05 PM

                  Funny, they count 1 year of the 30 years life of solar.

                  That makes it’s less than 3 cents.

                  you knew that, right?

                  • Joe Dick October 1, 2015 at 11:57 PM

                    Did they? Or did you just read that somewhere? Let’s talk about how people are finally getting wise about subsidies in the UK and cutting snake-oil waste. Equivalent to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour, and they’re complaining and whining because their subsidies are going to be cut. And you doubt the 96¢ per kilowatt-hour? If people are upset about no longer getting paid over 12 pence per kilowatt-hour, can solar really be viable?

                  • Joe Dick October 2, 2015 at 12:01 AM

                    This is just homeowners, being paid to install solar panels. If they whine about getting cut off from “free” Government “money”, just think about how the whole house of cards will tumble.

                  • Brian Donovan October 2, 2015 at 2:43 AM

                    Notice, when the pro nuclear folks are caught, they just change the subject.

                    They keep claiming solar would collapse without gov breaks, when it’s nuclear that would stop in one second without gov protection and support. Gov pays for the wastes, the mining wastes, the decommissioning, backs the loans, does the research for nuclear and has for 60 years.

                    Nuclear without gov? shut down in 1 second.

                    Get it?

                  • Brian Donovan October 2, 2015 at 3:21 PM

                    Notice he doesn’t really reply.

                    • Michael Mann October 2, 2015 at 6:08 PM

                      Notice Brian replies to himself…

                    • Ike Bottema October 3, 2015 at 11:30 PM

                      Perhaps he thinks that makes his perceptions reality. Reality is that his perceptions are, at best, misguided, at worst, lies.

              • Joe Dick September 26, 2015 at 8:35 PM

                Please demonstrate these assertions with calculations.

          • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:37 PM

            CaptDishonest, What is next, going to post those bogus studies from Yablokov again or have you decided to do the honest thing and either attempt to defend them or concede they are crap? Yea, the honest thing is a tall order for you.

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:12 AM

            What are the subsidies for nuclear? Without subsidies, wind doesn’t exist and who would pay the entire $30 grand to put solar on their roof?
            You were not a math major were you?

          • Nigel Deacon December 23, 2014 at 3:12 PM

            I often get emails telling me that fossil fuels in the UK are subsidised.

            This is incorrect. Fossil fuels are not subsidised; they receive certain tax breaks.

            A subsidy means money goes from the government to the company.

            A tax break means that money goes from the company to the government.

            The money flows in different directions.

            • CaptD December 23, 2014 at 9:45 PM

              I’m not trying to play the word games.

              I know in the US that the Nuclear Industry gets lots of “benefits” (which most refer to as “subsidies”) for things like the Government dealing with the long term storage of nuclear waste and the Price-Anderson Act which shifts the Cost or Risk of major nuclear accidents from the Utilities to the US Government!

              In the later case should something BAD happen such as a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima, everything over the first 12 Billion Dollars would be dealt with by the US Government (put upon the taxpayers).

              So despite what it is called the nuclear Industry receives “benefits” without which they would never be cost competitive, especial against Solar (of all flavors) whose prices are falling almost monthly and have no RISK like nuclear.

              • Edward Coyle December 28, 2014 at 3:31 AM

                You are absolutely right. They get loan subsidies because no one in there right mind would ever fund a nuclear power plant so, uncle Sam does.

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:34 PM

                  You mean the unwilling citizens of the USA does

                • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:15 PM

                  So did Ivanpah, but unlike Ivanpah, the nuclear plants live up to their name plate generation AND work day or night, wind or no wind.

                  Did you see this?


                  • bosshead February 23, 2015 at 2:08 PM

                    you meant day and night. sorry thank you.

                • Haut September 19, 2015 at 7:44 PM

                  Nuclear is natural, in terms of fusion. it is the answer,

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:14 PM

                What a lier! The government dealing with long term storage of used nuclear fuel…horse manure! The nuclear plants pay for this and rate payers through their utility bills!

                Because anti-nukes opposed Yucca Mt., the nuclear plants sued the government for not living up to their end of the deal and thus are no longer paying for Yucca Mt.

                The Price Anderson Act is similar to what the government does for many large scale operations. Nuclear Plants have their own insurance which covers about 300 Million. Additionally, all nuclear plants pay into a fund which now stands about 13 Billion. Should an accident occur that exceeds the initial 300 Million, the fund would pay the rest. Only after all these funds have been exhausted does the Federal Government step in. No accident in America has ever required funds in excess of that initial private insurance each nuclear plant has.

                see here:

                United States law requires payment of 8 cents per barrel of oil to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for all oil imported or produced. For this payment, operators of offshore oil platforms (among others) are limited in liability to $75 million for damages (which can be paid by the fund), but are not indemnified from the cost of cleanup. As of 2010, before payouts related to the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion, the fund stood at $1.6 billion.[8]

                It should be noted that the federal government provides similar insurance mechanisms for other types of disasters, such as floods; agricultural disasters; banks and savings and loan company failures; home mortgages; and maritime accidents. Liability limits also exist for oil spills; bankruptcy; worker’s compensation; and medical malpractice.

                The costs of this insurance are borne by the industry, unlike the corresponding costs of some other power sources. Costs from hydropower mishaps, such as dam failure and resultant flooding, for example, are borne directly by the public. The 1977 failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho caused $500 million in property damage, but the only compensation provided to those affected was about $200 million in low-cost government loans.

                The Price-Anderson Act is a consumer- and public-oriented legislation. It provides a substantial amount of insurance protection paid by the commercial sector at no cost to the public or the government.

                Solar panel manufacturing and wind turbine blade manufacturing are VERY dirty process and are so as a matter of business, no accidents are required for these polluters.

                • steveo77 January 7, 2015 at 11:12 AM

                  Yo azzhat, do you think anyone believes that $13B would even be close to covering a nuclear accident in USA?

                  USGOV predicted that an accident at Cook in Michigan could cause $620B in direct damages.

                  That aint insurance it is eye wash

                  • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:14 PM

                    Oh really? Just how long has Price Anderson been around? How much has the government shelled out in payments due to accidents? ZERO! Zero is a long way from $620 Billion and the industry is getting close to 60 years old in this country.

                    How much are we going to shell out for solar plants that don’t even live up to their 25% capacity factor? What is the nuclear industry’s capacity factor? 90%, and it doesn’t rely on unreliable wind, or day light. It is safe, clean, economical, and is currently the best energy source to power this nation and the world.

                    Do you see or read this?


                  • Christian Abel May 12, 2015 at 8:24 PM

                    What kind of accident do you imagine?

                    What kind of damages would a nuclear accident cause?

                    (FUD does NOT count as damages unless you are a bigot.)

                    • Hqs63 May 14, 2015 at 9:33 AM

                      ca ressemble furieusement a du TKM , ca !

                    • Christian Abel May 14, 2015 at 9:48 AM

                      Il parle de quoi, le connard?

                    • steveo77 June 22, 2015 at 1:30 AM

                      LOl throwing out bigot is a hilarious pre-ad-hominem out of the gate

                      Japan is experiencing 10% loss of GDP for 10 years. It may take down their country.

                      Loss of business income
                      Loss of farm and farm income
                      Loss of fixed assets
                      Loss of faith in government
                      Loss of confidence
                      Loss of health
                      Loss of life
                      Loss of electrical generation
                      Loss of credibility in “low risk”

                    • Christian Abel June 22, 2015 at 5:42 AM

                      None of the above is caused by nuclear accidents (except destroyed plant “asset”), only bad gov

                    • Nuke Pro June 22, 2015 at 10:26 PM

                      How stupid is that? Go clean up Fukushima little boy

                    • Christian Abel June 23, 2015 at 10:21 PM

                      Clean up what exactly?

                    • Nuke Pro June 23, 2015 at 11:08 PM

                      The coriums for starters.

                    • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:18 PM

                      Nuclear Fusion will save the world, but can,t have free energy right? Ask Nicola Tesla.

                  • SA Kiteman August 9, 2015 at 10:46 AM

                    The only accident in the USA (TMI) did not exceed the private insurance amount and never even reached into the mutual liability clause. Since nuclear plants are much safer now than then, it seems unlikely that such an accident will come to pass.

                    A plant may, thru some mechanism, melt down. But it will not spread appreciable quantities of radio-isotopes.

              • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:16 PM

                I,ve come to the conclusion after reading your posts, that people like you are a danger to society, I bet you would like to be a Polititian too. How much do they pay to be a TROLL?

                • CaptD September 17, 2015 at 6:21 PM

                  Haut — Is that the best reply you can post, a cheap shot and some name calling? FLAGGED for your poor effort.

                  BTW: Who cares about your personal “conclusions”, since that are not based on any factual links or even a good response reply… Talk to yourself much?

                  • Haut September 18, 2015 at 8:20 PM

                    I know immence knowledge on solar activity, I,m a Meteorologist, I,m also an undergraduate in qualitive physics, Like I said before Nuclear Fusion is the answer, much work is being done, despite the sabotage from Zionist media & controled economic banksters.

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:33 PM

              thats a silly ass game of semantics. A tax credit is a subsidy, slam dunk. Spin don’t win. We aren’t stupid.

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:53 PM

                Then you must be absolutely against wind and solar because they don’t exist without subsidies.
                Also, a loan guaranty is NOT the same thing as a subsidy and is NOT a matter of semantics.

                • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 8:58 PM

                  Silly ass comment, I am not against subsidies that encourage a beneficial and fledgling industry.

                  A loan guarantee is indeed the worst form of subsidy since it put the taxpayer 100% on the hook. A risky business would be loan insurance. A country killing business like nuclear could never be insured….how do you insure a trillion dollar loss and 50 years of lawsuits on top of that?

                • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 10:58 AM

                  A Congressional Budget Office issue brief on federal financial support for energy development noted that “Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent.” CBO further explained:

                  Tax preferences for energy were first established in 1916, and until 2005 they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. Beginning in 2006, the cost of energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share was aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun, which generally cause less environmental damage than would result from producing and consuming fossil fuels. Provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences in 2011. However, four of those provisions, including the one with the greatest budgetary impact, expired at the end of calendar year 2011. Only four major tax preferences are permanent, three of which are directed toward fossil fuels and one of which is directed toward nuclear energy.


                  • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 12:25 PM

                    Cees, when a link continually attributes what it considers ‘bad things’ to the “right wing media” it loses some credibility. The myths and facts section look like skewed talking points. For example, on bird deaths, if they are so small as to be negligible, then why do these companies do this?


                    Also, I believe the real issue is not so much with absolute numbers of deaths, but on the kinds of birds, raptors, some of whom are endangered.

                    Although I am highly skeptical of claims regarding EM field dangers from power lines, or wind turbine flicker causing harm, I will say that in a documentary I saw on Netflix a few years ago where they had a long 10 second or so shot out the back window showing the flicker and it was quite irritating to view even for that 10 seconds or so. What I am saying is that until you experience that flicker, one cannot make an accurate judgement as to whether folks should be subjected to that kind of irritation.

                    Here are some links to consider:



                    Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

                    Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

                    Pollution from wind turbine blade manufacturing:











                    There is certainly far more I could present but this should be sufficient for now. Just look at the land usage in the article we’re all responding to, 250,000 acres of wind farms = 430 acres of nuclear. THAT, is a non-decision.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 7:54 PM

                      Whoa, i didn’t ask for any of that off-topic spam (i’ve seen it many times on your profile). I simply countered your statement that wind is nothing without subsidies with a more credible statement.

                    • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:46 AM

                      “I simply countered your statement that wind is nothing without subsidies with a more credible statement.”

                      It would help if you provided a link that supported your “more credible statement.” If you are right, it certainly isn’t reflected in the link you supplied which is what I was responding to and which you said was “off-topic spam.”


                      Here is a quote from the report:

                      The appetite for building wind projects in Vermont has tapered off in recent years.

                      A combination of factors — the end of federal stimulus money, uncertain reauthorization of federal incentives, difficulties in connecting to the grid, competition with solar and local opposition — have shelved at least two projects and left three others lying dormant.”

                      The report goes on to suggest that wind power “might be poised to catch its second wind.”

                      Here is more:

                      “The project would not be built if there were no subsidies equivalent to at least 50% of the capital cost. Without subsidies, the wind energy produced would be at least $0.15/kWh delivered to the grid.

                      The project has everything to do with grabbing as much federal subsidies as possible and “coursing” them through Vermont’s economy for the short-term benefit of the well-connected few (including high-income, non-Vermonters looking for tax shelters and foreign companies supplying wind turbines), at the long-term economic expense (higher electric rates) of the many.

                      Over the past 10 years, the subsidies for wind turbine facility owners have become so excessive that facilities are built in marginal wind areas, as on most Vermont ridge lines, or before facilities are built to transmit the wind energy to population centers, as in the Texas Panhandle, just to cash in on the lucrative subsidies. Here is a partial list of subsidies:

                      – Federal grant for 30% of the total project cost which also applies to Spanish, Danish, German and Chinese wind turbines thus creating jobs in those nations instead of the US. These nations would not dream to have such a measure benefitting US wind turbine companies.

                      – Federal accelerated depreciation allowing the entire project to be written off in five years which is particularly beneficial to wealthy, high-income people looking for additional tax shelters.”

                      I apologize that at this time I can’t find the link where I copied this from but I feel quite certain it was regarding Green Mountain Power.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 10, 2015 at 6:27 AM

                      CBO can be googled, and even the text at your link mentions uncertain subsidies:
                      “For now, solar is dominating the renewable energy landscape in Vermont.
                      And unlike solar — which can ride on a federal tax credit for
                      residential projects until 2017 — similar incentives for large-scale
                      wind remain intermittent and uncertain.”

                      And your text itself merely proves that subsidies help to build things, which is why the subsidies for oil are incredibly high now that you’re mining tar sands.

                    • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:02 PM

                      see here for an article in March of 2013:


                      Also, I did find where you got your (CBO) information but am unsure as to whether you saw the Institute for Energy Research rebuttal. Here is the link:


                      On your quote regarding the 4 permanent provisions 3 of which go to FF & one to nuclear, we find the following rebuttal in the IER response:

                      “Comment: The Production Tax Credit for wind was first instituted in 1992 by the Energy Policy Act of that year and has been extended 8 times. Its current extension is through the end of this year and was legislated by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. However, while expiring at the end of 2013, any wind farm that begins construction in 2013 will have 10 years of tax credits coming once it begins operation. The original law and the previous extensions mandated that the wind farm begin operation before the tax credit was to sunset. The Investment Tax Credit for solar energy originated with the Energy Tax Act of 1978 and was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                      The tax deductions that the oil and gas industry receive mainly affect the independent oil and gas producers that explore and drill for oil in marginal wells. These tax deductions are akin to those that businesses receive for depreciation (percentage depletion allowance) and research and development (expensing of intangible drilling costs). All businesses receive the domestic manufacturing tax deduction, but the oil and gas industry can only claim a 6 percent deduction of its profits, while all other manufacturers can deduct 9 percent. Removal of the later tax deduction will force oil and gas companies to move overseas for their investments in exploratory drilling, increasing imports of energy while shifting jobs abroad.”

                      Cees, to conclude, let me repeat that I am for what works. I want California and the country to pursue an energy policy that insures grid stability while maintaining costs low, AND to be environmentally clean. Those are 3 parts of the energy equation that often compete with one another. I believe in full transparency regarding all aspects of each energy source, a transparency equal to what the nuclear industry is forced to provide. Championing one energy source at the expense of others is not wise (being against an energy source). A house divided cannot stand.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 10, 2015 at 6:27 PM

                      20e9 USD was 3% of your defense budget in 2013. I think the war for oil security was a worse idea than investing more in energy efficiency and sustainability. Thankfully LED, Aerogel, and PV are now cheap enough for consumers, but instead of duplicating work on JSF and such, why not research better battery tech? AAs and others still require maintenance lest they leak or die, the grid can’t handle wind park excesses and general dropouts, and thorium reactors are still experimental in India.

                    • VACornell January 22, 2016 at 2:24 PM

                      Please tell me where are the subsidies for oil and gas…
                      Show them to me!…
                      …I would like to believe they need none…
                      That’s competition..
                      Let’s go compete…!,

                    • Cees Timmerman January 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM

                      “Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion per year. ” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
                      According to the cited source the countries include India, China, Indonesia, and the Middle-East.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 14, 2016 at 10:38 PM
            • Sam Gilman August 15, 2015 at 8:51 PM

              It’s fiscally the same thing, just “distributed” through a different mechanism. Look up “tax expenditure”. To call tax breaks a form of subsidy isn’t a controversial thing to do.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 8:57 PM

            More crap from the king of dishonesty. Are you still posting those bogus studies?

          • SA Kiteman February 21, 2015 at 1:18 PM

            In the USA, nuclear gets about 1/5th the subsidies of the unreliables while producing twice the energy. And the majority of “subsidy” for nuclear is for R&D on things they don’t really want or for regulatory burden they would prefer to do without.

            • CaptD February 28, 2015 at 5:57 PM

              SA K – I don’t think you are including all the “things that remain behind the ☢ curtain” like the Price Anderson Act shielding the nuclear industry from BIG lawsuits and/or long term waste storage just to mention a few…

              • SA Kiteman March 4, 2015 at 7:49 AM

                Price Anderson does not shield the industry from “BIG” lawsuits or any other size. It requires the each lant get the maximum insurence that any buisiness of any type can get. It then makes the INDUSTRY TOGETHER libel for the next big chunk of indemnification. After that, Congress will decide what to do. Of course, the biggest accident in the US didn’t even reach the maximum plant insurance limit. PAA is hardly a subsidy.

                Are you totally UNaware of the fact that the industry has put over 28BILLION dollars into a government fund to handle the PUFF (previously used fission fuel)? That is in excess of what the government has spent out of that fund for Yucca Mt. On this point, the industry is subsidizing the government.

                • CaptD March 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM

                  SAK – NOT FACTUAL ==> Anything over $12 Billion is N☢T Covered by the Price Anderson Act, so all US taxpayers would be “on the hook”.

                  BTW: $12 Billion is a drop in the bucket if something like Fukushima occurs since it is more like a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster.

                  RE: “the industry has put over 28BILLION dollars into a government fund” you forgot to mention that the Industry got the money from their ratepayers, so the Industry did not pay the money, but they probably wrote it off their taxes… ;-0

                  • SA Kiteman March 4, 2015 at 7:58 PM

                    Sorry, YOU are not factul. Beyond $12B it is up to Congress to decide. The knowlegable folk suspect it will never need to be decided since the likelyhood of such an incidence here in the US is infinitesimal. But _IF_ (and it is a BIG “if”) but IF it happens, the knowledgible folk expect Congress to just extend the mutual liability.

                    Well duhhh! Of course the industry got their payments from the rate payer. EVER industry gets their expenses from their customers, except the unrelibles that get much of their $ from direct subsidies. Do you have a problem with Walmart making enough money from their customers to pay their taxes and licencing fees? Why should the nuclear business be any different. I must say, that is one of the stupidest arguments I ever hear anti-nukes make. Sheesh! I suppose YOU don’t use YOUR wages / other income to pay YOUR taxes and other fees? I suppose it just magically appears to you. SMH

                    Actually, they payed a SPECIAL tax on interest earned on funds they have to accumulate for other purposes. The nuclear industry is just about the most heavily taxed and be-feed industry there is.

                    • CaptD March 4, 2015 at 8:34 PM

                      SAK – So you admit I’m correct…
                      “The Industry did not pay the money” the ratepayers did, which is a big distinction!

                      Also I believe that ratepayers must pay the nuclear waste money as yet another assessment that the Utility regulators have passed onto the ratepayers.

                    • SA Kiteman March 6, 2015 at 8:11 PM

                      They are called CUSTOMERS. They pay the nuclear power costs because even with paying it, nuclear is still the best deal. Sheesh, you are waxing nutsoid!

                  • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM

                    NOT FACTUAL. After the $12B is expended (if ever), Congress is merely on the hook to define WHO is liable for the rest. It is industry expectation that the Mutual Indemnification Clause will continue, though many would prefer that the company at fault be held liable.

                    Since it has negligable likelihood of ever happening, they aren’t too worried about it.

                    Oh my, they got it from their rate payers… and still the rate payers pay less for RELIABLE nuke power than for anything save hydro (which by the way IS subsidized MASSIVELY by the FedGov). By the way, anything they get frm the rate payers is in fact THEIRS, so yes they DID pay for it. You lack of basic understanding of business is disturbing. You may want to rectify tat before making yourself look the fool again.

            • Brian Donovan August 6, 2015 at 10:05 PM

              Sure is you use the literal definition of “subsides” yet if you use all gov breaks they get twice their operating expenses.

              Tell us how they would operate without gov insurance?

              • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:32 PM

                How would they do without government insurance? Just fine, given they don’t have any NOW, or ever, AFAIK. The FedGov requires that they buy the maximum insurance that insurance compnies are permitted to sell to ANY customer, and then required to mutually indemnify to about 30X the insurance level. After that, Congress is required to define and the industry expectation is that Congress will just continue the mutual indemnification rule. But since the worst case accident in the US has not exceeded the private insurance amounts, and nuclear plants are getting markedly safer all the time…

                Brian, you really should stop parroting the anti-nuke standard lies.

                Oh, and how would renewables do without the 100% government liability for flood insurance? Or the fact that no renewable technology is required to set asside founds to handle their wastes like nuclear is. Nor do they have to set asside OTHER funds for decommissioning like nuclear does. If anything, the nuclear industry is subsidizing the government with free loans.

              • SA Kiteman August 7, 2015 at 2:51 PM

                What “government breaks”? I will bet you think that the government owns everything and just allows people to use it and anything that businesses earn belongs to the government, right? Are you aware of the EXTREME amount of government control over the nuclear industry and the fact that the industry DIRECTLY pays the wages of the government workers that regulate them? Any knowledgible, rational individual would notice that uniquely among energy industries, nuclear subsidizes the government, not the other way around.

              • VACornell January 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM

                Nuclear plants can exist for 60-80 years….maybe 100?
                What else can I say?
                Theyr’e costly, but…so reliable..
                Which reduces cost….forever…
                A hundred years from now…?
                What will we see?
                1…some of them still operating?
                2…all dead?
                What is YOUR thinking?…on this
                Vern Cornell

                • Brian January 22, 2016 at 4:08 PM

                  Reliable? Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI, Shellfield,…..

                  Nuclear power is short of fuel in ten years and more expensive to operate that solar, wind or gas. Nuclear power is already failing to sell it’s energy at auctions.

                  Nuclear will be be long gone in 20 years, much less 100, and only the painful deadly wastes will remain forever. a million years is functionally forever given humans have only existed 200,000 years.



                  • Cees Timmerman March 16, 2016 at 5:26 PM

                    Even with those notable accidents, nuclear is the least deadly source of electricity: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#2b12653449d2

                    • Brian March 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM

                      Bad data, they don’t include the millions of deaths from Chernobyl and fuku, nor all the deaths from mining.

                      It’s pr. Duh.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 16, 2016 at 5:30 PM

                      Alarmist overestimate. Current power generation also requires mining.

                      Also, modern reactors can run on current stockpiles of nuclear waste, including thorium from coal ash.

                    • Brian March 16, 2016 at 5:47 PM

                      No, it’s Russian federation science, that the IAEA, which has a charter to promote nuclear power, denies and the WHO uses the IAEA reports. But you believed it. You believe politicians and pr.

                      Nothing to worry about, lead, tobacco and radiation are all good for ya, right?

                      Over a million deaths from Chernobyl:

                      http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov_Chernobyl_book.pdf Chernobyl

                      Consequences of the Catastrophe for

                      People and the Environment is a translation of a 2007 Russian publication by Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B. published at one time by The New York Academy of Sciences https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/efc711deeeb15f6f6260fae100ebf1b340240aa49f2182ae7bb7f94fabc418a2.jpg

                      Remember the deaths and lives ruined by uranium mining? of course you don’t.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 22, 2016 at 8:23 AM

                      Hypocritical appeal to authority, ad hominem, straw man, gish gallop, appeal to emotion, how is uranium mining worse than coal mining?, ad hominem.

                    • Brian March 22, 2016 at 3:30 PM

                      You mean to listen to the scientist in the nations effected,instead of a political agency that get’s their report from the explicitly pro nuclear IAEA? No, that noticing conflicts of interest, which is no Ad Hominem.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 23, 2016 at 3:54 PM

                      Cherry picked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll lists, among others, Benjamin K. Sovacool, UNSCEAR, and the WHO in addition to the IAEA.

                    • Brian March 23, 2016 at 6:31 PM

                      A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A disputed Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]

                      your wiki link.

                      Disputed, I bet. a billion dollar in pr per year disputed.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 24, 2016 at 11:30 AM

                      Greenpeace relies on scare tactics to solicit donations from uneducated people. They have overestimated Brent Spar pollution, refuse to consider advances in nuclear science while telling people that advances in renewables will make everything work (possible, but it’s rather hard to find clear plans on their site, last i checked), and permanently damaged the most famous Nazca Lines area in yet another reckless cry for attention. That last act was what made me end my decade-long donations to them.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM

                      You call facts about nuclear power scare tactics.

                      Got it.

                      Very weak critique of Green peace too.Is that all ya have?

                      Greenpeace beat the daylights out of political agencies like the IEA for facts and accuracy: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/graph-of-the-day-why-experts-get-it-wrong-on-wind-and-solar-58816 Greenpeace has nailed it every year for predicting solar and wind and IEA has gotten so wrong it’s funny. Why you should never trust political agencies!

                      Your future fantasy nuclear power plants are hilarious!

                      The AP1000 is nothing particularity new except dangerous cost cutting. That’s the newest nuclear power plant.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 11:09 AM

                      No, I call these scare tactics:

                      “we are looking at ice-free summers in the arctic as early as 2030”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE

                      [spooky font] Are you in the Zone? [/spooky font]: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/greenpeace-zone.jpg from http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/greenpeace-anti-nuke-anti-radiation-pill-campaign-backfires.html

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM

                      And, we are well onto to that. Little early to be calling it wrong.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:34 PM

                      And you didn’t lay a glove on the Russian report, by the scientists, in the countries most effects.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 10:15 AM

                      Peer-reviewed and reproducible?

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM

                      Sure, all we need is another Chernobyl. Why don’t you folks read it and see.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 1:07 PM

                      “Though it likes to portray itself as a scrappy environmentalist organization against wealthy corporations, in reality Greenpeace’s operation is bigger than many of the world’s biggest multi-national corporations. For example, Greenpeace’s revenue is greater than some of the world’s richest sport franchises including the Arsenal soccer club ($336 million), Boston Red Sox ($272 million), and L.A. Lakers ($212 million). It is also bigger than what are thought to be the biggest trade associations including the American Petroleum Institute ($203 million) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($214 million).” – https://www.biggreenradicals.com/group/greenpeace/#financials

                    • Brian March 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM

                      Hilarious, and completely irreverent attempt to smear the source. BTW, we citizens fund Greenpeace. Unlike the other associations you list.

                      You see where the terrorists were after a nuclear power plant?

                      Don’t have to worry about solar and wind that we, do we.

                    • Brian March 23, 2016 at 6:33 PM

                      You seriously think we should listen to the IAEA estimate of the deaths, which are the ones used by WHO and the UN?


                      You know the charter for the IAEA is to promote commercial nuclear power right?

                      SO say it out loud: you trust the IAEA paid pr agencies estimate of nuclear power deaths.

                      Let’s hear that.

                    • Brian March 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM

                      Yes, your logical fallacy is believe folks with a clear conflict of interest, and a history of lying: the IAEA.

                    • Cees Timmerman March 25, 2016 at 10:12 AM

                      “a history of lying” – Prove it.

                  • jason July 24, 2016 at 9:58 PM

                    Lol these people think the world has only existed 6000 years. Hard to argue with that mentality. And solar lasts over 50 years just figured I’d help ya. Its just guaranteed for 30.

                    I installed on my own place in washington state. Dropped my bill too 20 bucks it didn’t drop it 20 bucks big difference.

                    it was a big system and over 20 grand before credits but still worth it

                    • Brian July 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM

                      I wish I could install solar, but I live in the worst area in the country for solar on a lot shaded by my neighbor’s tress. I may move soon, and I will definitely look for a better solar location. It’s not clear if they will last 50 years, the oldest modern design solar panels in large quantities are only 40 years old. Do you have a link older panels still working? I looked.

                      Some of the new cells have very low degradation rates and are calculated to sill be producing 75% after 100 years. I don’t know how long silicone sealant would last. There were some all glass encapsulated panels, and they might well last 100 years. Solar panels are already profitable to recycle, even the cells. It’s not really a problem.

          • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 4:49 PM

            Look up CaptD on urban dictionary it’s kind of funny….

            • CaptD August 21, 2015 at 4:59 PM

              MM – The only thing “kind of funny” are those that only call others names, instead of posting relevant comments and/or links.

              To better describe people like that I penned:

              Nuclear Payback*

              * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

              Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

              • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 5:04 PM

                Kind of like posting “nuclear baloney” links to urban dictionary a dozen times? Or your new “Nuclear Payback”? What does making up nonsense and posting it to “Urban Dictionary” help anyone… ironically that was my point exactly! LOL

                • CaptD August 21, 2015 at 7:13 PM

                  MM – My point is that most that post Pro-Nuclear comments and especially those that seek to shift the decision to something else like the person making the comment, are doing it because they hope to get something in return, which is THE reason they support nuclear…

                  It is easy to spot these comments, just look for comments that have ZER☢ o do with the discussion topic, like most of yours are…

                  • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 7:33 PM

                    LOL CaptD you are one of the worst offenders, yet you try to point fingers at people who care about meeting our future energy needs with safe, clean, reliable power plants.

                  • Michael Mann August 21, 2015 at 10:08 PM

                    Yes, I expect to get everyone a better future; a cleaner environment, safe, abundant, reliable energy what are YOU trying to get in return?

          • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 8:18 PM

            nuclear gets the most, and useas the most land.

            http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-real-deal-on-u.s.-subsidies-fossils-72b-renewable-energys-12b solar 2.3, wind 12B, ethanol 17B, 70B fossils. nukes 120B$

            Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
            That means nuclear power needs more land than ground solar.

            • CaptD August 25, 2015 at 9:07 PM

              Brian – Seen this:

              Smaller ☢ does not mean better!

              Since Big is no longer profitable, the Nuclear industry is begging for R&D money to develop SMR’s.

              Hinkley C Mothballed – Is it in its Death Throes? « No2NuclearPower https://shar.es/1vbcWs

              • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 9:37 PM

                They are begging for money period. They are selling all the countries these reactors that will be short of fuel in ten years, India already has had to throttle their nukes from a lack of fuel.

                All these nukes have to be cancelled, what a con game!

          • just a thought June 20, 2017 at 7:01 PM

            Scroll down to…
            “Direct subsidies per unit energy to US power generation technologies”

            …and you will see that wind and solar and biomass get 38 times the 5 other energy sources combined, for the same amount of energy subsidized. Has and oil alone produce about 140 times the energy of wind and solar.


            • just a thought June 20, 2017 at 7:05 PM

              Not “Has”, but Gas. Coal should be included there as well. So should read “Gas, coal and oil…”

        • CaptD October 19, 2014 at 4:36 PM

          Joe Dick
          Wall Street knows what Energy costs which is why only the US Gov’t. is lending money for Nuclear, since Nuclear owns so many in Congress.

          A perfect example:

          Solar, wind cost-competitive for peak energy, study finds

          Consultant questions subsidies for residential solar when costs are dropping


          Solar and wind power are increasingly cost-competitive with conventional forms of electrical power, including coal and nuclear, even without subsidies, according to a new study.

          “The economics of alternative energy have changed dramatically in the last decade,” said George Bilicic, global head of the power energy and infrastructure group at Lazard Ltd. and author of the report.


          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:32 AM

            Wow. So, do instruct me as to how you’re going to do anything but spout bullshit from the media.

            Let me know when the first solar panel factory goes off line using it’s own product, will, you?

            You stalk the world via the internet, promoting the so-called future, and yet you can never answer that simplest of questions; so I will ask it again:

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Hell, if it’s so damn “killer app”, you don’t need batteries, because nobody really wants to work three shifts a day in “Musk World”. If it’s really “Musk World”, why don’t we put solar panels on our cars and drive around for free, all the time?

            C’mon, no batteries need be included; where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:34 AM

            Simple question:

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:35 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories?

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:36 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Co me one, answer the question, psychotic boy…

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:37 AM

            Where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? Do tell us, please…

          • Joe Dick October 20, 2014 at 12:41 AM

            Oh, c’mon, please do tell me… where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories. We all want to sleep at night. Thousands of years we lived without power in the night. Wouldn’t it be great if the light bulbs dimmed as the sun went down? I think so. So, where are the solar panel powered solar panel factories? I want a job there! In the company town. I’d vote against batteries and say let’s just sleep at night.

            Who’s side are you on?

            By the way, where are the solar powered solar panel factories?

            Do tell….

            • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 6:36 PM

              What a stupid ass argument. Make your point directly then we can discuss

              • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 10:42 PM

                What a stupid ass comment…it was CaptDishonest who made the claim regarding solar panel powered solar panel factories. Joe is simply asking him where they are.
                So Capt. where are they?

              • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 12:27 AM

                Why is it a stupid ass argument? Seems pretty direct to me. If you made a product that was capable of gathering more power than it took to make it, wouldn’t you then use it to make the next batch, and so on, until you could quit buying power and go off the grid?

                So why are there no solar panel powered solar panel factories? Could it be because they’re not efficient enough to make economical copies of themselves? Hmmm?

                • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 12:09 PM

                  asshat, the size of the roof in relation to the energy needed to manufacturer is the metric to review. Manufacturing is energy intensive. Most manufacturing plant will not be able to produce all their own power from sunlight. Most residences can. Many businesses can.


                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 9:19 PM

                    Asshat. You are so funny. ‘Splain to me how you are the “clarifier” of anything. Wow. You make me laugh!

                    • Clarifier December 31, 2014 at 9:27 PM

                      Sheesh boy, you aint even up to being a troll

                    • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 1:20 PM

                      I don’t troll, “Clarifier”. Not my style. Sorry about your luck. And don’t call me “boy”.

                    • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 1:31 PM

                      OK Dick boy, whatever you wish

                    • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM

                      You sure seem to like my family name in your mouth…

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:04 PM

                    I still can’t believe your best response is “asshat”, and to call me a “dick”. Wow! I hope you had fun with all that. Feel better, little boy/giirl? Sorry you don’t have the frontal lobes to bring to the party. “asshat”. Wow. You make me laugh!

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:11 PM

                    “Clarifier”. Wow. As if you clarify anything by calling people “asshat”. One question. You put the lower case version of family name in your “mouth” via the keyboard twice tonight. One has to wonder if you like that. Meanwhile, I’m too busy laughing at you to respond to your content-free, rhetoric-full response.

                  • Joe Dick December 31, 2014 at 10:12 PM

                    Hahahahahahahaha…. Muahhahahahahah…. You’re funny!

          • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:15 AM

            Yea, that’s why T. Boon Pickens lost his ass in wind power, because it is oh so competitive. You are farther out in space than Capt Kirk.

          • Investigator December 30, 2014 at 9:19 PM

            Solar and Wind cost competitive without subsidies? What Hogwash! see here:



            Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

            Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan.

            Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.


            Gone With the Wind: Weak Returns Cripple German Renewables.

            War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution.

            Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.

            Reality Check: Germany’s Defective Green Energy Game Plan.

            Eco-Blowback: Mutiny in the Land of Wind Turbines.

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/sroc/Tables/t0305.pdf War on Subsidies: Brussels Questions German Energy Revolution.

            • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 1:31 PM

              Hilarious, as if any factual information has ever been posted at pronuke Rod Adams Atomic Lies

              • Investigator January 7, 2015 at 10:22 PM

                Could you be more specific? It is easy to make claims, a little harder to back them up. Just ask CaptDishonest who posted the bogus Yablokov non-sense, then when it was pointed out to him, he simply fled to another website and posted the same crap.

        • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 11:56 AM

          J. Dick – Who are you calling a nameless f? FLAGGED

          Nuclear gets far more money from the Gov’t. than Solar (of all flavors),especially when you factor in the Government taking the RISK if Nuclear goes BAD. Price Anderson ring any bells?

          Factual cost comparisons:

          Here are some factual cost numbers provided by bobwallace that were posted on Forbes here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/07/11/france-will-fix-its-nuclear-problems-but-will-that-satisfy-other-nations/2/

          “Production costs from the existing fleet are heading higher over the medium-term,” France’s Cour des Comptes said in a report to parliament published today.

          The report, which updates findings in a January 2012 report, said that in 2012 the Court calculated the cost of production of the current fleet for 2010, which amounted to EUR 49.5 per megawatt-hour.

          Using the same method for the year 2013 the cost was EUR 59.8/MWh, an increase of 20.6 percent over three years.


          That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

          US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM

            “CaptD” is not a name. I use my real name in pubic forums. If you can’t get that bit of shoild-be-easy-to-understand information, it is little wonder that you do not comprehend anything else I have discussed here.

            • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM

              Joe Dick – I don’t care what you call yourself or all the slanted comments you post, but Bullying and/or Name Calling is not allowed, so get your act together or populate some forums that specialize in Name Calling!

              RE: “comprehend” trying reading the links I’ve posted and perhaps you will “comprehend” that your posted costs for wind vs Nuclear are just plain not factual!

              In the above link, The French Government admits that their Nuclear is getting too expensive as compared to Wind; what is so hard to understand about that?

              • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM

                Look, you call yourself “CaptD”. Have you ever held the rank? In what branch of service, on a ship or in an airline? Meanwhile, your avitar is a robot. That’s a tell if ever there was one. Apparently you have been programmed, sorry to point that out. The majority of us here are human beings that think for ourselves, no programming required.

                The topic of the article under discussion here is the real estate required for different means of feeding the grid. Nuclear wins. Meanwhile, solar takes up a lot of acres, and for what? There are no solar powered solar panel factories, and they’d be off the grid if they were ” enewable “. Where does the energy come from to make them? Conventional sources. See any windmill powered windmill factories about? No. Same problem with both: They cannot harvest enough energy in their useful lives to make copies of themselves and provide a surplus of power.

                We get it. You are anti-nuclear. Understood.

                Now I’m all about free discussion and fair debate, so don’t go accusing me of as hominem attacks. All I’m saying – and this is for the audience, not you – is consider the source, and it explains everything: A robot wannabe Captain, raging against anyone who deigns to disagree.

                Flag this! You namless fanatic…

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:37 PM

            Let us see and contemplate… I received 11 upvotes for the post you screamed “flagged” about in all capital letters. You’ve been called many things here, such as “CaptDishonest” – did you flag them too? Many here have patiently discredited your cut-and-paste propaganda, as well as enjoy your illogical antics. You do realise that this has been going on now for over a year, right? You do have a sense of time, yes? Or does it take 10 months for something to sink in with you? Or are you just out of gas, with nothing else to argue, so now you seek to flag and ban those that disagee with you?

            Anyway, m’colleagues and I have certainly enjoyed the show! You are a nameless f – and “f” stands for fanatic. That you took it otherwise is your problem.

            • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 2:05 PM

              J. Dick – You are still calling out those that post comments, but you don’t post any real comments other than denial of Nuclear going BAD.

              BTW: I did not take it anyway, you calling people a fanatic is still name calling and that has ZERO to do with posting comment to replies; it is just Bullying. Flagged.

              • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 3:37 PM

                You never answer any of the questions I pose, like why are there no solar panel powered solar panel factories. When are you going to get that I’m performing a community service here? By keeping you tied up responding to year-old arguments, I keep you out of other people’s hair with your propaganda and failure to engage in actual, polite, fact-based discussion. You are a Captain? Of what? Simple question. You could politely answer that it’s just a fake name, and that you really are whoever you are, and your credentials are whatever they are; but no, you always refuse to engage in actual discussion on any topic.

                I wouldn’t be back here but for a ping on my Disqus saying you want to flag me for something I said ten months ago. So keep at it. I’ll continue to keep you busy, and press you for answers you’ll never give. As I said, I’m just performing a community service keeping you battling blindly away. I only respond to your responses. Based on private messages from other readers here, were just waiting for you to get tired and change the channel – and amazed that you just don’t get that no one is listening to you!

                1. Are you a Captain?
                2. Why are there no solar powered solar panel factories or the same for wind power?
                3. Rinse and repeat.

                Bullies like you don’t scare me. I’m no bully. I just ask questions and expect answers…

                • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 5:26 PM

                  Joe D –
                  1) You’re fishing but you can call me Sir…

                  2) Solar powered everything is coming, Google Apple and others are now installing their own Solar because they don’t want to pay Big Utilities for something they can produce themselves while writing off the cost! Home owners are following the same path toward Energy Freedom (once their investment is paid off).

                  Solar is now at the stage where Nuclear was in the 50’s and everyday more install Solar for themselves and for Utilities! In 10 years Solar (of all flavors) will be a much better value than anything available today!

                  China builds huge solar power station https://shar.es/1tiF5D

                  And soon maybe even this for true 24/7 “Solar Energy”:

                  Saudi Arabia in the North Sea https://shar.es/1tiFws

                  3) Swabbie

                  • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM

                    Ibid. See above. Answe the questions. You are not a “Captain” and solar power has always been coming to a theatre near you – except it’s a movie that does not exist. Try the Shockley equation on for size.

                    More cut and paste fake logic from “Sir CaptD”. Look everybody! He knighted himself to boot.

                    • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 6:19 PM

                      Joe D – Everybody calls a Captain “Sir”, it has Zero to do with being knighted, especially in the USA.

                      You want to talk about something that does not exist try SMR’s and that Nuclear “Wannabe” Thorium.


                      Try sticking to the conversation and stop fishing for background info so you can challenge other comments by calling them names!

                    • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 6:38 PM

                      People call Captains “sir” if they are a subordinate, and only if they are a Captain in reality. Captains call their superiors “Sir”. Therefore you lose your argument that everybody calls a Captain sir.

                      Again, why don’t you try sticking to the conversation regarding the topic of the article? Real estate required for unproven power sources to supply the grid and that that information was suppressed?

                      No, you have to bully everyone into the conversation you want to have in order to promulgate your propaganda. Keep at it! We’re having a good chuckle over a few friendly beers at your ineptitude.

                      Given that I have relevant training and a degree in engineering, perhaps you should show some respect to your superiors. Nope. Clearly not a Captain, unless it was with a dishonourable discharge!

                      Enjoy your evening! Let us know when you come up with anything original or award winning in your thoughts! My mates and I are done being “entertained”, and off from the pub to have some fun that doesn’t involve easy targets.

                    • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 8:27 PM

                      Joe D – RE: “My mates and I are done being “entertained””

                      I guess that means you and the others like you are done adding Pro-Nuclear comments for the day, hope they pay you well… Ha Ha Ha

                      You are not the only one with a Degree in engineering so again, stop fishing for background info and post some relevant info, if you can.

                      BTW: The Hinkley C project is now mired down in lawsuits and that is a great thing for all the UK ratepayers that will have to “pay” for too high priced Nuclear Energy for decades to come, plus that is before they have to decommission it and try and store the ☢ Waste someplace.


                      Nuclear IS TOO Expensive for everyone except those that profit from Nuclear!

                      Here is another example from the US for a new reactor:


                      That’s about $0.08/kWh for electricity from paid off reactors.

                      US onshore wind is now about 4 c/kWh unsubsidized. US PV solar is now about 6.5 c/kWh unsubsidized. That for new capacity and their costs will fall to about 1 c/kWh upon payoff. Compare both the new and paid off wind and solar prices to France’s 8 c/kWh for paid off nuclear.

                      If new Vogtel energy costs 18 c/kWh who is going to profit from using it?

                      Ratepayers will be held in Energy Slavery as long as Vogtel operates figure 20 to 40+ years as regulators force them to buy Energy instead of installing their own residential Solar.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 10:20 AM

                      Never done. Just know when to go have fun! Something you seem too wrapped around the axle to accomplish.

                      Now we release you into the wild. Go! Be free! Run witback h your own kind! You can all howl at the moon together.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 10:59 AM

                      “Ratepayers! Energy slavery awaits you! Deal not with the nuclear devil! Repent! Repent!”

                      You sound like a combination of a broken record and a bad televangelist.

                      Nuclear is clean, efficient, inexpensive, and safe when done properly. Thorium rectors look promising; too bad they were set aside for almost 50 years, but at least we’re exploring them again.

                      I’d rather live next to a nuclear plant than be like this poor guy and his family. Sure wind turbines shut down when the detect icing conditions, and will never accrete ice that they can throw at people and their homes less than 300 metres… away…https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4EmYe2u6J6g
                      They won’t have a negative effect on wildlife…

                      They are so safe and clean and friendly!

                      And safe and dependable!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0ovHFTSBQ54

                      And you never have to shut them down in bad weather, and they’re designed to live through the most extreme conditions…

                      You are anti-nuke, even when nuclear makes sense. I’m anti-stupidity, but of course you won’t understand what I just said, you’ll just bleed all over it with your anti-nuke propaganda, shouting so loud that you fail to hear…

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:18 AM

                      When I studied nuclear science at Purdue University, we reviewed the data from Three Mile Island. Then Professor Gailar had us calculate the exposure we would receive from the radioactive isotopes of in just the three students in the row in front of us, the three behind, and the ones to our immediate left and right. Going to a single semester of his class was orders of magnitude more exposure from naturally occurring radioactive potassium in our classmates.

                      Even a modicum of Education dispels a trainload of irrational fear.

                    • CaptD August 17, 2015 at 1:23 PM

                      Joe D – Your PU example is just more phony science, since one “fuel flea” inhaled could easily cause lung cancer and lead to death. Fukushima put tons of radioactive “dust” into the upper atmosphere, I wonder who is breathing it in right now?

                    • Joe Dick August 17, 2015 at 6:52 PM

                      Okay, Negative Nelly. It’s all doom and gloom! Might as well give up. You’re destined to be dead as soon as you’re born, so give up! If we eliminated nukes you’d just be afraid of something else until the world was made of Nerf – and then you’d still complain.

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:37 AM

                      I have to laugh at anti-nuke activists. They gather in groups, irradiating each other with their own naturally occurring isotopes.many have sun tans. Until the advent of flat panel displays, they ranted at the world from computers with CRTs. Before that, they printed flyers and leaflets on paper, full of carbon 14.

                      They can run, but they cannot hide! Live in a cave alone? No! Naturally occurring mineral isotopes abound! Dear gods, there are particles passing through us that have passed through the entire earth! Aghhhhhh! Save us! Lol

                    • Joe Dick August 16, 2015 at 11:55 AM

                      Life has an absolute, 100% guarantee of just one thing: Death. It’s not a death-proof world. Nothing is perfect. You cannot make the world absolutely safe. You will get hurt along the way. Things are hard and sharp and you will get bruised and cut and you will bleed and maybe even break a bone or two.

                      The activists amuse me. What are we supposed to do? Make everything from Nerf? Oh wait, sponge rubber outgasses chemicals, and isn’t bio-degradeable! And people still have fists to punch with and hands to strangle with. Oh no! Now what do we do?

          • Joe Dick August 15, 2015 at 12:41 PM

            Still enjoying a great big loud belly laugh! Ten months later you claim to flag me for calling you a nameless fanatic. Ever so sorry I abbreviated! Man, you do need to get a clue. Start with using your real name and a picture of yourself, preferably not in an restaurant-grade aluminium foil hat.

        • Brian Donovan September 25, 2015 at 5:40 AM

          It’ doesn’t cost 82 cents per KWH, unless you only use it for one year.

          What a subversive lie. you take a thirty year product and cost it out using one year.

      • Joe Dick October 15, 2014 at 2:47 AM

        C’mon! You said it pencils out so readily! Show me the grapilhite! Figure for me baby!

        • steveo77 January 5, 2015 at 2:45 PM

          MUST NOT waste time on trolls

          • Joe Dick January 5, 2015 at 3:19 PM

            In other words you can’t cut the mustard. Figures.

      • Investigator November 2, 2014 at 12:11 AM

        Nuclear costs more than solar? What baloney! If it costs so little, why isn’t it producing more power? Why do the power companies not completely shifting over to solar? The obvious answer to these questions make you look like a fool and a dupe.

      • SA Kiteman February 21, 2015 at 1:10 PM

        The “waste” from a current nuclear plant is about 3% waste and 97% fuel. Seperate the two and the waste is as safe as the dirt it came from in about 300 years. That is easily paid for by the original users; no slavery involved.

      • G.S. Williams August 15, 2015 at 4:58 AM

        check in youtube for LFTR in 5 minutes. This is 100% safe nuclear fission

        • CaptD August 15, 2015 at 11:43 AM

          G.S. W – LFTR is nowhere near either Proven Safe or Ready for Commercialization, it is just more ☢ Pie in the $KY *Nuclear Baloney (NB).

          BTW: Solar and/or Wind are far less expensive than Nuclear and that is a proven fact.


      • Haut September 16, 2015 at 9:03 PM

        Fission “Nuclear” is the Baby Fusion is the “DADDY” Bring it on!

      • Haut September 17, 2015 at 9:11 PM

        Correction, Nuclear is cheaper more efficient, solar is Ok, for small operations, try gridding up a Hospital complex with solar, “OR” wind I would,nt like to be relying on either for my health, I think you are an indoctrinated “Fool” Do you think Bin, Laden done 9-11 just answer that & I will know I,m right, but will you?

      • GRAMPA October 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM

        many haven’t factored in what it takes to manufacturer the photo voltaic cell. The maximum efficiency obtained under ideal conditions is twenty two percent. then we must look at the elements in the manufacture. many are highly toxic. We had a problem in Michigan when one of Obamas deals to create jobs went bankrupt and left barrels of the waste product for the state to dispose of it required treatment with other chemicals just about as bad as the ones used in the process and then encapsulation. This also must be stored and if broken would cause damage to the land. The foot print to make a farm large enough to power a city would be as large as the city itself. Look on http://www.cfact for the UK has data comparing the size of the footprint. As a master electrical contractor I can tell you that the photocell will need many years of improvement to equal a normal coal or oil powered plant. Nuks are dangerous but I see improvements every day and they can be made safe with research. steps have been made to reuse the rods and not need to store them. Doesn’t say we should give up and back off the pressure for that is the only way we will solve the problems.

        • CaptD October 24, 2015 at 11:21 AM

          Gramps — Isolated problems are found in all Energy generation. Nuclear has had some epic failures and has cost trillions in global Eco issues.

          Read how Germany is both lowering their Electrical rates and going Renewable at the same time despite what the Anti-Green Bloggers are saying (and yes they are using very modern Coal Generation [while scrapping their older Coal generation] to assist them as ever moreRenewable generation starts replacing even the Coal generation):


          • GRAMPA October 24, 2015 at 3:33 PM

            as a master electrician and contractor I follow this closely. the cells are only twenty two percent efficient and that comes by layering. The cell must have sunlight period the highest efficiency comes in a direct sunlight that is on a gimbal driven by clockworks or stepper motor bringing the surface into alignment with the sun. The efficiency that is published is measured under maximum sun. If we factor in the data output when we have no sun and then add the two together we have only ten percent efficiency. Why should we demand output from every other source and make exception for photo voltaic cells. These cells are almost as toxic as the nucular elements and no one has done study’s on the impact it will have on the environment when disposed. because this is a new technology who knows how long they will last? The led that is made from the same elements were said to last ten thousands of hour’s. They do but the light output diminishes and we are seeing this even now with the TV sets that the picture isn’t as bright even after only one year. The arays that will be installed outside will also be subject to damage from weather something that isnt factored into test data. A typical home of 2000 sq foot costs about 18 thousand dollars to install. and the idea you can sell your extra power back to the utility. Yes if you have the equipment that can synchronize your output with the power grid. the sq foot required for a southern exposure would be 1000 sq ft and it goes up to compensate for angular compensation. The footprint at the top of the article shows how many photocells it would take to provide the same output as nucular and while it doesn’t say they must base the output on a seventy percent efficient output a standard in the electrical industry. I am not trying to knock the industry down or discourage its use just saying we are a long way from any degree of dependence on this technology.

            • CaptD October 25, 2015 at 12:31 AM

              GRAMPA – The new panels are sending signals almost by the minute so that the output is monitored 24/7. They will be replaced if any of them are not producing as designed. Try talking to some big Solar Companies like SolarCity or SunPower as they guarantee their panels for 30+ years!

              BTW: Nothing pollute the environment like a nuclear reactor gone BAD, look at Fukushima. Also all the Nuclear waste is going to be around forever (as far as we are concerned).

              Good Luck to US.

              • GRAMPA October 25, 2015 at 11:06 PM

                they do not guarantee against nature and its wrath. We have balls of ice the size of baseballs and I know of no photocell that will produce in the dark. Yes the danger from nuclear is great and nothing is perfect if we look at the accidents and adapt and improve the footprint of these generators cannot be compared to ether photo or wind. photo cells have a long way to go for efficiency and they cant serve in darkness and must rely on battery’s storage that present danger in themselves. and like everything must be manufactured which requires more carbon footprint. Wind generation also requires manufacturing and now we are learning of the fatigue problems of the blades and the failure rate of the bearings. The wind farms installed by Germany and Ireland suffer constant failure ant the cost of maintenance and replacement parts is costs grow ever more expensive, inflation being the least of the costs. Specialized training for the maintenance alone are prohibitive for only few pass the training. Standing in the sea requires ships that are rigged for some very bad weather that subjects these units to extreme stress. Even the ones that are land based require many thousands of acres to produce the same as one nuclear that will take two hundred acres. Which becomes less threat to man two hundred acres unusable or 130 thousand acres to supply the same output To be useful they must be located on prime land because maintenance costs and transmission costs will take too much of the profits. Look and see how many personnel it takes for the nuke plant and for ether air farm or photo farm. At this point it wont work.
                Grampa Master electrician/ contractor

                • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM

                  GRAMPA — Better recheck your facts, both Wind and Solar PV require far fewer workers and the energy they produce can be stored (Hydro, battery, molten salts) to use when the sun or wind is not available. Germany is making money on their renewable tech as well as reducing their dependance on Nuclear and Coal, as they install ever more Renewable.

                  Plus those homeowners and factory owners that install it get paid for the energy they produce, not just Big Utilities like in the USA.

                  You said, “The wind farms installed by Germany and Ireland suffer constant failure ant the cost of maintenance and replacement parts is costs grow ever more expensive” is not accurate, please post a link to where you got it.

                  • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 7:21 PM

                    I talked to my cousin who lives and works in germany and he sent me to a site that shows in wider perspective of the power problems and not just for the wind farms.
                    https://srsroccoreport.com/germany-death-of-renewable-energy-bring-on-the-dirty-coal-monsters/ and http://www.welt.de/ will explain the “green energy failing. google will translate the German site. They are expanding the use of coal, Well you cant believe everything you hear now can you.

                    • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 7:31 PM

                      GRAMPA – Sorry, you are not disclosing the “whole” picture.

                      Yes, as I said above, they are now using CLEANER Coal generation to fill-in until they complete installing ever more Renewables and they are doing it while also getting rid of all Nuclear.

                      The USA could easily do the same thing fig it was not for the Utilities “hold” on elected Decision makers that want to keep getting Nuclear Payback*.

                      They even pay far prices for non Utility Electrical Energy from non-Utility generation, something that is not happening in the USA.

                      * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nuclear+payback

                      Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other “costs” are for others.

                    • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 7:48 PM

                      You said their cost were not going up which is it you cant have it both ways and the costs to cable the wind farms with the costs of copper and aluminum are unsustainable. They limit the generators at twenty years and they are most at fifteen now it is unsustainable and like the articles say they are going back to coal. Canada is now following suite and going to oil Obama hasnt the wherewithal to comprehend the need to go to our natural gas and our oil that could put us back on the path to economic stability. I may have only a high school education but I have operated two successful company’s and learned economics the hard way and I see where the inefficient power is taking many countries on the pretense of renewable power and it will never happen for they try to run before they can walk.
                      Grampa Aka Mullan electric

                    • CaptD October 26, 2015 at 8:23 PM

                      GRAMPA —
                      Energiewende doesn’t translate as “energy mess”


                      The Senator is exaggerating. He probably got the figure from former German Environmental Minister Peter Altmaier, who announced a price tag of a trillion euros for the Energiewende. But over the next 35 years (Germany has targets for 2050), this number only amounts to 30 billion euros a year. Even that amount is probably less than what we will have to pay anyway. After all, Altmaier was not only talking about phasing out nuclear, as the Senator seems to think. Rather, Germany also aims to reduce the share of fossil fuel in Germany’s energy supply from the current level of around 85 percent down to 40 percent by midcentury. Pursuing the Energiewende is cheaper than not pursuing it. And the Germans aim to do so not only with solar and wind, but also with biomass, efficiency, smart grids, etc.

                      I believe that you have enough “experience” to understand what it is saying. Afterward, you will have a much more accurate picture of what is going on.

                    • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 11:22 PM

                      You have proof this man is lying? I get my information from my cousin who lives and works there He directed me to this information Believe what you wish I believe family for he has nothing to gain by lying to me. When one uses words like “probably” they have no secure data to stand on.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 1:08 PM

                      GRAMPA — One nuclear Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster will more than fund any improvements that Renewables require and that is without even including the long term ☢ Storage and/or the problems it poses to mankind.

                      Instead of worrying about “wiring” you need to consider the big picture, where man’s greed and/or Nature leads to yet another Fukushima “for what ever reason”…

                      The more solar rooftops we install, the more Energy will be at the point of use and that will make the system even more efficient, despite what Big Utilities say to try and retain their marketshare of Energy profits.

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 2:07 PM

                      Do you know the cost and how to synchronize the output from your roof top to the power grid? When power is generated it cannot be stored and if not used the potential is wasted. If the utility has no need to buy the power you have generated how will you force them to buy what they dont need. Power use goes up at night and darn just when the photocells dont work. life is a bitch. You havent said anything that hasnt been said before. Oh yes and the Obama idea for “green” power from photocells in Michigan was a big failure with a bankruptcy and putting six hundred out of work and left tons of toxic manufacturing byproduct for the state to clean up. this was on Tv and pushed as the savior by Obama personalty. I will say you have your intentions in the right place but at this point technology is not sufficient . It doesn’t say that tomorrow they wont find the way of storage that will give us the advantage we need. I follow the technology daily but must say that with everything we have nucular is still the most productive. Is it dangerous yes but is that a reason to stop from making it safer? It still provides the only true zero carbon output after the fuel rods are made. We will never control the safety standards of other countries. So I would give you one last problem to solve if you would deny japan the ability of using nucular where would you get the power giving the footprint of the alternatives. Consider the conditions of the weather off Japan for both the efficient of photocell or the storms that would wreck havoc on the wind farms As a contributor to the NEC conditions around the world are factored in the studies on conditions and the restrictions imposed on the installations for the safety of the citizen. The nucular plant you speak of was designed to stand a 5.0 quake but a wave that force we have no designs that would let it survive. How many problems have they had before this problem? how many plants in the US? How many problems have we had? The safety record of the entire world is excellent but play on the fears of the citizen for political advantage. We do need people who watch but I caution that we must not be lead by the fears imposed by politics for government and their push for control and power.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 2:25 PM

                      GRAMPA — The utility takes care of allowing home generation to enter the GRID and they get paid to do it. In CA SDG&E has even patented a device that allows for easy connection to smaller sized panels so the homeowners don’t have to heavy up their panel when they install Solar.

                      You need to balance every point against Solar & Wind with one against Nuclear and/or Coal.

                      Then you will start to provide “balanced” comments, instead of Anti-Solar & Wind.

                      10 years from now Solar & Wind will be far more accepted/desired than now because ratepayers will discover that they can easily provide much if not most of their own Electricity, and they will be able to also recharge their eVehicles at the same time.

                      That is the Future, despite what the Utilities are trying to prevent.

                      Germany is making major headway and if they can do it so can the USA!

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM

                      Whoa This is my business I work with every day. It is the way I make my living so how can you say I am against it? I do not want it to fail and it will if controlled by government instead of the professionals who are trained in the utility. I have had people jump into the idea that they would sell power back to the utility and I am now going back to my customers and removing the panels because they have found the customer not there buying the power. We are seeing the removal when the homeowner try’s to sell the home and are penalized for removing the panels because the utility has you sign a contract to sell but on their demand. The contract must be passed to the new home owner and as with any contracts there is costs to transfer and the new purchase rates are not the same. as they claim lower profit margins. now the investment of the installation will take longer and isn’t acceptable. a single array will cost with permits (if allowed) of $ 2000.oo dollars to a complete system for a 2000 sq.ft home at $45,000.oo dollars Ask yourself what is the cost of one kilowatt hr. and how long would it take you for a return on your money? In Detroit it is .15 for a kilowatt hr. I do not sell or push the sale unless they want to live off the grid. It isnt profitable. We gross around three million a year and provide only few customers who ask for solar. Most are industrial who want backup power for computer service. Im sorry I have provided data from Germany and their unsuccessful efforts to make the sustainable power work. Again I repeat I am not against the development but do not force it on a country when it isnt capable yet. Develop and make your utilities you have safer for they may prove more viable in the long run.

                    • CaptD October 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM

                      Grampa — You can imagine how popular Solar is in the sunshine states where the payback is around 10 years and the panels are guaranteed for 25 or more years.

                    • GRAMPA October 27, 2015 at 6:15 PM

                      Yes I can imagine and work to create it everyday. I dont want to sound like the wet towel to cool down the energy but along with the sunshine is also lower cost of living and the wages that go with it. Now that said the average size of the home is also smaller and also their electrical usage. The investment however remains the same per square footage of a home that uses less energy and as a result would need to spread the cost over many more years. Our most efficient models used are in bright sunlight almost 22% I have data that has a new double layer that claims higher. We will need to get the output much higher. having associates who are contractors in Florida and having many customers who are retired the interest in installing equipment they wont be around to use isn’t high on the list This would be the best place for sun usage but now to add another problem. insurance for storm damage. The major problem we have even in Michigan is wind A cell makes a perfect wing and while we have tornadoes with 90 MPH winds they have the same in Florida. With commercial installations the frame and roof support can be over half the cost of the cell. We have many who work to solve the many problems. I haven’t even mentioned lightning and the damage it can do from a strike nearby. So far the best installations are out west in the near desert areas that dont grow any invasive plants or critters that like to nest in them. the wind farms are also doing OK out on the plains but are presenting problems with wildlife with the vibrations that are inaudible to man. We have many obstacles to overcome. and that is why I dont want government to force their usage on a nation that cannot sustain itself with their present efficiency and reliability.

                    • Atoms4Peace1 October 31, 2015 at 1:33 AM

                      Blah blah blah. The antinuclear bafflegab keeps spewing.

                    • CaptD October 31, 2015 at 11:43 AM

                      A4P1 — At least I post readable replies, links and comments instead of just calling other names like you seem to enjoy doing.

                      Here is what SCE did when they tried to self design replacement steam generators at San Onofre (aka SanO):

                      If you had bothered to read the many links I’ve posted for you to read, you would have learned that SCE failed to design the new replacement steam generators to prevent the 9,727 internal tubes, in each replacement steam generator, from hitting each other and/or their supports.

                      Tube chart link:


                      This caused what the NRC called “unprecedented” wear and lead to the radioactive leak in 01/31/12. Although small, it in turn led to the inspections that revealed that all four almost new replacement steam generators were no longer safe! SCE then decommissioned San Onofre to end both the NRC and the CPUC investigations into SCE’s “wrong doing.”

                      BTW: If one and especially if several tubes had failed, it could have caused a cascade of tube failures that could have quickly drained the reactor core and caused a meltdown like Fukushima.

                      BTW: SCE is FLEECING all it ratepayers by having agreed to a behind closed settlement (that determined that ratepayers would pay for SCE’s debacle) that was done in Austria long before any public meeting were held to “determine” a fair settlement.

          • GRAMPA October 25, 2015 at 9:49 PM

            I agree improvements are being made but what i try to convey is that cutting costs should not be the only goal. In California people have cut power consumption only to be hit with an surcharge because they cut consumption. this will become practice for if consumption is cut so is revenues for the power company’s. The budgets are figured on projected incomes. it has a ripple effect down the line and as example with coal use if less is needed and less is shipped then we need less trains and less people to run ,service and build them and less people working is less taxes collected by government. Less people working causes less spending power that puts others to work Our nation can only function by a continuous expansion of product. Efficiency is the only way that works. Keeping the world safe is also the goals of many who must gain the ear of the public to look to insure that any improvements are done so that they pose no danger to our country in the future. How many times have we thought we has the answer to all our problems only to have two caused by not looking ahead and putting our miracles into use only to find they are a curse. All I want is to implement an ounce of prevention so we dont need to spend the pound of cure.

            • CaptD October 25, 2015 at 10:24 PM

              GRAMPA — I suggest that you begin to balance your comments so that readers can better benefit from your experience as a “master electrical contractor.”

              I believe that Solar (of all flavors) is the future and all the items you pointed out (plus others that you did not) will be the accepted norm in 20 years if not sooner.

              At that time Nuclear will still be too expensive to use, unless ratepayers are forced to by they elected Leaders and regulators; at which time those states will see business “flight” as consumers plus small and big business alike relocate to other areas of the USA that offer less expensive energy, like the Sunbelt.

              • GRAMPA October 26, 2015 at 9:45 AM

                I am not trying to change peoples minds for I haven’t the skill to do that. I expect people to take information and expand their own views and prove to themselves if what I say is true or not. Dont believe anything you hear and only half what you see. I have had two businesses I built on only a high school education. I have poor English skills so I dont belong as a teacher. I point to data I have found and expect people to use their own skills to prove it for themselves. My only advice is that we do not trust government data until proven by trusted sources for government uses data for its control over the citizen. In my seventy five years I have seen the change and while I cannot speak with authority on many subjects I have worked personally with these two utilities to know that while they have promise we have much research to do. The more people looking the better chances we have that someone will have the answers that solve the major problems. my only hope is I push even one to take notice and not accept what others say. Well I have confused everyone enough!

      • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 9:13 AM

        Fluoridated molten salts Thorium reactors like the one they ran without any incident in Tennessee for five years.

        • CaptD December 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM

          Allen — Lots of R&D money spent on it but nothing was ever Commercialized because it did not pencil out then, nor would it now that Renewables costs are dropping almost monthly.

          • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM

            There was nearly NO money spent on it.

          • Allen Eltor December 27, 2015 at 10:26 AM

            Almost NO money was spent on it. It was run 5 days a week for 5 years without failure nor incident. Obviously you’re new to the energy field I’ve been a professional in atmospheric energy and radiation for a couple of decades, and the story of the Thorium reactor that ran is the stuff of legend in the nuclear world.

            Money was set aside to try to find a nuclear engine for an AIRCRAFT is where the initial output went. When the research for an aircraft nuclear engine was over, the one they’d made was started and run for five years.
            The mechanical description and energy processes of that reactor are very well chronicled and you’re simply talking like someone who learned your nuclear power from Popular Science.

          • Allen Eltor December 28, 2015 at 4:21 AM

            No hardly ANY money was spent on it. It came out of the desire for a plane nuclear engine and when all the studies were done the simple cheap reactor was there ready to go so they started it and ran it five days at a time during the work week, 24/7 for five years.

    • Brian Donovan August 8, 2015 at 3:44 PM

      Nuclear uses and abuses more land than solar, wind and renewable have to. Renwables can be built smart and use zero land. offshore and rooftop/parking lots.
      Nuclear needs Rare Earths, renwable doesn’t.

      Pro nuclear folks love to talk about how “dense” nuclear power
      is, resisting the obvious joke that claim is both false and
      irrelevant. Nuclear power station need thousand of acres of exclusion
      zones around them.

      It’s mining and wastes where nuclear
      power really eats land. For example

      .05% to even .02% ore. Olympic Dam has enormous reserves of ore, with
      347,000 tonnes of contained uranium oxide …. The
      overall resource contains some 2.45 million tonnes of uranium oxide
      in a hematite breccia complex. While the grade of the uranium ore is
      lower than many mines or potential mines which have the benefit of
      open cut operation, the fact that copper is a co-product with uranium
      from that same ore (at 1.8% Cu in the reserves) means that such
      grades are viable.
      Expansion of the mine will bring major
      infrastructure challenges. The present 12 GL/yr water consumption
      (met from the Great Artesian Basin) will grow, possibly to 70 GL/yr,
      requiring a coastal desalination plant with pipeline to Olympic Dam.
      The operation now uses 10% of the state’s base-load power (870
      GWh/yr) and the expansion will add demand for another 650 MWe and
      4400 GWh/yr, the source of which remains to be determined. The CO2
      output from power generation attributable to the operation is likely
      to grow from 0.9 to some 4.7 Mt/yr.
      1,136,000 hectares per
      2.4M tones of u2o8. About a hectare pr ton.

      at .02%, you need to dig up 5000 tons of rock to get one ton of
      yellowcake. That process contaminate much larger areas than
      the mines themselves, the water, the dust, the acids used for

      that 1 tons of yellowcake, a weapons proliferation risk, must then be
      further refined such that 8 tons are needed per tons of fuel.

      40,000 tons of ore are needed to make a ton of fuel. That’s no
      better than coal in terms of mined materials versus energy.

      to mention overburden and suck.

      tailing from nuclear mines are particularly bad. the broken
      rock is porous and water easily leaches the toxic materials out.
      They could immobilize in concrete, but that too expensive so
      they don’t. Then the used leaching acid is stored in pools like
      the one that recently broke. While uranium mining share these
      problems with other types of mining, it’s one of the worst.

      for energy density, it’s not an advantage, it’s a liability over a
      certain point. The Average efficient home has enough rooftop to
      provide the average amount of electricity from average solar panels.
      There are 40% panels that are currently too expensive, but
      will probably eventually come down. You don’t need high
      intensity than that.

      power on the other hand has much to high an energy density are
      various point to be safe. The Yellowcake is a proliferation
      threat. The nuclear power plants need vast exclusion zone and
      need to be far from population, increasing dangers and transmission
      costs. The waste is also to energy dense and dangerous.

      NEEDs rare earths.

      can add color to glass, and it
      is used in microwave
      equipment as well
      as nuclear control

      Erbium is a
      lso used as a neutron absorber in nuclear

      Gadolinium hasparticular properties that make it
      especially suited
      for important
      functions,such as shielding in
      nuclear reactors and
      neutron radiography.

      shielding windows
      for the nuclear industry. Radiation shielding
      windows are
      from high-density,cerium-stabilizedlead glasses.

      is used as an additive in yttrium-stabilized
      zirconium oxide
      and is the primary rare earth compound used
      in refractory
      ceramics. Included are YSZ oxygen sensors used to

      oxygen content in automobile exhaust gases, molten glass
      steel. They are also used to control industrial
      and as aqueous pH sensors in primary water systems of

      Europium is often used as a shield
      material because it has a high
      neutron cross section
      and has also has been used for
      control rods in certain compact
      nuclear power reactors

      The largest rare earth use is metal
      additives, mostly for the type
      high quality alloys nuclear
      power need.

      Rare earth mining in third world countries is
      sadly done without
      proper regulation, and the world now imports
      rare earths and nuclear
      ore from third world countries.

      nuclear ore mining is even worse.

      Ya notice a pattern in the
      nuclear fan boys? They accuse
      renewables of something bad, and it
      turns out, it’s not renewables
      that have the problem it’s nuclear
      that does.

    • Brian Donovan August 20, 2015 at 8:41 PM

      Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
      That means nuclear power needs more land than ground solar.

    • Brian Donovan August 25, 2015 at 8:20 PM

      Nuclear needs more land than land solar. solar needs zero since it fits on rooftops, parking lots and roads, but if you choose land, it’s smaller than nuclear.
      http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html nuclear also cost 4 times as much. it’s also short of fuel in ten years.

    • Brian Donovan September 20, 2015 at 7:12 PM

      Gee, minus mining, and waste disposal, fuel fabrication….

  2. CaptD November 3, 2013 at 11:33 AM

    Yet another Pro Nuclear canard, remember that one nuclear power plant can become a Fukushima and cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster, wind and/or solar cannot!

    • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM

      Wind and solar can’t do a lot of things – like provide enough power to matter. Nuclear is the best, safest option, but frightened fools lie about the damage it can do. Fukushima was not built to deal with the level of quake it should have been, yet the damage is still far less than the greenies try to spin it as.

      • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM

        You are right, Wind and Solar can’t do a lot of things like cause a Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima!

        As for providing clean and safe energy, unlike risky and expensive nuclear, they will define our future, that is unless decision makers are receiving money from the nuclear utilities…

        • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM

          Fukushima didn’t cause anything, that was the tsunami. Wind provides little, but does do ecological damage. Solar is purely supplementary, when it works. Together, they can only define a Malthusian future. Nuclear, however, can open the cycle and allow us to grow. The expense of nuclear is also mostly due to scare-mongering and excessive regulation.

          We badly need to go to thorium pebble-bed reactors, with a handful of soliton reactors for processing spent fuel, and use some of the electricity to crack sea water for hydrogen to power cars, as well as to create more drinking water. We also need to encourage more businesses and homebuilders to supplement with roof-based solar cells, while discouraging large area solar arrays (except in orbit).

          • CaptD November 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM

            Forget the Nuclear R&D, if we sue that money to install safe and proven Solar (of all flavors) we get immediate access to energy without any nuclear baggage or risk…

            SMR win Golden Fleece Award:


            • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 11:41 PM

              Forget solar – it’s proven ONLY to be modestly useful, but utterly unable to replace the grid, and takes too long to provide any benefit. As for R&D – what R&D? We already know how to build pebble bed reactors, and we’ve also already built soliton reactors. The only real baggage to nuclear is the agitprop of useful idiots such as yourself. Nor do I care about the Proxmires – the unlamented senator set back the space program considerably, for which he should have been executed as a traitor to the whole human species. Take off the blinders and actually THINK!

              • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 12:43 PM

                Ever more Nuclear Baloney from you while at the same time you refer to me saying,”useful idiots such as yourself”.

                Name calling is prohibited, end of discussion……………..

                • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

                  You post no facts, only green dreams. You also have entirely too thin a skin. Look up the phrase you found yourself offended by, and then really rethink the lies you buy.

                  • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM


              • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:40 AM
                • William Ewing January 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM

                  Cherrypicking allows you to make things seem better. Overall, across all zones, solar does not scale as well.

                  • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM

                    Care to share some proof of that? Closer to the equator than Germany, solar should only get better.

                    • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 3:54 AM

                      Please quote relevance in case the links die.
                      While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. […]
                      After installing a solar panel, “it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
                      “”” – JASON DEAREN, ASSOCIATED PRESS
                      FEB. 10, 2013

                      A solar-panel manufacturing plant in the eastern Chinese city of Haining has been forced to close after hundreds of residents attacked the facility in a 4-day protest over accusations the factory contaminated a nearby river, according to the BBC.
                      “”” – DINA SPECTOR
                      SEP. 19, 2011

                      Chinese factories are known to pollute local streams, but the Chinese government should be able to handle that, unless it’s corrupt.

            • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:36 AM

              Half a US billion is peanuts compared to ongoing wars. The U.S. federal government spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second. State and local governments spent at least another 25 billion dollars. http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

              • William Ewing January 8, 2014 at 3:31 PM

                And I for one, would love to end the war on drugs and get rid of the DEA. Put that money into a real space program.

          • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 10:33 AM

            Have they solved the dust and constipation issues of pebble-bed reactors yet? LFTR or IFR may be more viable designs.

      • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

        It is nice to see intelligent posts, such as yours, Mr. Ewing. Thank you for taking the time to deal with this nasty little troll; what a shame, however, that people like “CaptD” pollute the internet with unnecessary noise…

    • William Ewing November 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM

      As the professor pointed out above, solar cells are replete with toxic waste. Wind farms kill birds and bats in large numbers, significantly impacting the local ecology. And the metal to build has to be mined, so your beloved “green” tech really isn’t green at all. Open your eyes.

      • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        Ever more crapola from you posted without having any factual basis.

        Post some links to backup your claims (if you can find any) or at least get educated on the subjects you claim to know something about!

        Try this excellent piece on bird deaths and who is to blame
        Canada Ranks Top Bird Killers, Wind Turbines Not Even Close To The Top (Be sure to read the comments and notice all the links to back them up)!

        Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/31/canada-ranks-top-bird-killers-wind-turbines-even-close-top/#Yl5u5iclrMublQBv.99:

        • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:33 PM

          Links mean little, other than that someone built a site to say something. That does not make it true. I, on the other hand, read books and evaluate the author’s claims logically. Don’t be so credulous.

          • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM

            Ha Ha Ha

            • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM

              Terribly mature. Now shut up and listen. You might learn something. Or go away; those of us who are interested in having an intelligent discourse.

              Also, by the way, don’t bother with that puerile thought going through your head of some grade-school witticism involving my family name. You’ll just look more a fool than you already do.

              • CaptD September 27, 2014 at 8:56 PM


                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 10:15 PM

                  You are a cunt, as and you know it. How can you possibly be bored by something you had to have a computer remind you of?

                • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:31 AM

                  Your sole cerebral contribution to the discussion.

        • William Ewing November 4, 2013 at 5:37 PM

          Quite the propaganda site you cite. Even there, the comments show that the data was old, and based on the then-extant low number of wind turbines, and is no longer accurate.

          • CaptD November 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

            Name calling and claims of “Propaganda” will not convince any readers that you actually have valid points worth considering…

            • Joe Dick September 25, 2014 at 3:07 PM

              Seems like you’re the one slinging names and insults about, alone with a rather rude style in general. It’s nice and easy to hide behind an avitar and a fake name issue verbal slings and arrows, isn’t it. First, I rather doubt you have ever held the rank of Captain. Second, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t have a degree in any applied science or engineering. Must be terribly satisfying to troll as you do, spreading misinformation on behalf of your “religion”. I would strongly suggest you learn your place in society, and respect those who have taken the time to attain appropriate education and experience in the field. Mr. Ewing and Prof. Hurst are quite correct in their assertions here. You would do well to listen to them and learn.

              • CaptD September 27, 2014 at 8:58 PM

                Wrong yet again on many accounts!

                Unlike you who seems to only sling names I usually point out factual info and the links to back it up.

                Name and other such stuff only make it easier for off topic comments like yours…

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM

                  C’mon, real men have a conversation and don’t pretend at knowledge. I can toy with you more than you can toy with me. Wanna proper debate? Bring it. Otherwise leave these people alone. π if you don’t get it.

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:46 PM

                  Come on bitch, do tell the crowd your name. Pussy much?

                • Joe Dick September 27, 2014 at 9:50 PM

                  If you’re proud of your information why hide in the weeds? Real scholars pin there data and analysis to the bulletin board. Screw the “link” shit. Get your own thinking on, troll.

                • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:32 AM

                  Like those bogus studies you post, remember those? The Yablokov non-sense that you posted, got refuted, then slunk off to another site to repost the bogus study again.

        • Clarifier December 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM

          CaptD did you the 93 lies of the nuclear cartel, it is very interesting. let me know whenever you need help to joust these cretins

          This is a grear youtube video on the 93


          • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:33 AM

            What a thoroughly unprofessional, crack pot web site!

      • Jasoturner November 5, 2013 at 4:49 AM

        I was recently visiting Wisconsin. Apparently the windmills killed far fewer birds than the alarmists anticipated, but the effect on the bat population was very bad. The vibration of the blades attracts them, and the blade backwash (not hitting the blades themselves) when they flew by crushed their lungs. Anecdote for the record.

    • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:57 PM

      Nor can wind and solar power our grid!

      • CaptD October 24, 2014 at 9:42 AM

        Ha Ha Ha It is already powering the “grid” in many locations when used with other types of non Nuclear/Coal generation.

        We are now in the transition period where nuclear usage will continue to decline, since it is now far more expensive (cradle to grave) than Solar (of all flavors), which is now steadily replacing Nuclear and Coals market share of Energy production.

        • Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:46 PM

          “non Nuclear/Coal generation”

          Like the natural gas that must back up the solar power plants because they are so impotent and ineffectual at providing the stated name plate capacity.

          Relying on solar and wind alone is a fools errand and only fools and those who wish to make a quick buck off the subsidies will pursue it.

        • Investigator December 21, 2014 at 1:50 PM

          How much land does a solar power plant take up? What is Ivanpah take up? You know, the loser that failed to produce anything close to what they hoped and claimed they could do. Are they at 6000 acres to produce 375 MWs at a measly 25% capacity factor and they have failed to do even that? A nuke plant is what, 100 acres to produce 2300 MW with a 90% capacity factor. And you want to replace nuclear with this loser? You sir, are a fool.

          • CaptD December 21, 2014 at 2:53 PM

            How much land is now covered with radioactive waste and pollution in Northern Japan because of the triple meltdown at Fukushima?

            Nuclear reactor have the ability to cause Trillion Dollar Eco-Disasters, yet you never accept that they can go BAD.

            Wind and PV will never be a threat to mankind like Nuclear, Solar is the future and if you choose to deny it, that is your choice.

            Your calling anyone that does not agree with you a “fool” simple announces to readers that you have problems dealing with opposing opinions.

        • Investigator January 8, 2015 at 12:37 AM

          Yea, nuclear is declining, they’re only building some 40 nuclear plants around the world instead of 100. How many millions of solar panels does it take to equal one nuclear plant?

          • CaptD January 8, 2015 at 2:01 PM

            How many millions of gallons of ☢ water is Japan now dumping into the Pacific Ocean DAILY, not to mention all the ☢ ash from Fukushima?

            • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM

              see here for reality:


              A quote from the article:

              “Available evidence leads the NRC to conclude the Fukushima situation will not affect U.S. public health. The highest amount of radiation that will reach the U.S. is two orders of magnitude—100 times—less than the drinking water standard,” NRC Chairwoman Allison Macfarlane told Bloomberg.

              Here is another excellent site I include NOT because I think you will read it, you’re not interested in truth; but because others might.


              A quote from the article:

              Is There Fukushima Radiation on North America’s West Coast?

              (The following is a summary of the Fukushima contamination issue with the North American PacificCoast. As of late July, 2014, no Fukushima isotopes have been detected along the coastline.)

              This article also contains the news links to support an objective study of the topic.

              As usual, CaptDishonest exaggerates in his self serving manner.


              • CaptD January 10, 2015 at 11:44 AM

                Until the Japanese Gov’t. allows independent scientist access to the Fukushima site, which includes the waters of Fukushima, nothing posted by TEPCO (which is owned by the Gov’t. of Japan) nothing they post can be trusted since they have a long track record of questionable news releases that have been shown to be false and misleading.

                If they have nothing to hide then why have they restricted access to only those that sign security releases?

                Any announcements by outsiders based upon TEPCO/Japanese data is therefore suspect.

                • Investigator January 10, 2015 at 1:19 PM

                  Until you decide to man up and defend your bogus posts or concede the point, until you stop lying about aspects of nuclear power, until the content of your posts actually reflect what you say is in them, then NOTHING you post can be trusted, in fact, it is a little too late for you given your disreputable history.

                  Somebody forgot to tell the Canadians and the US NRC, who have maintained a presence at Fukushima since the accident, that CaptDishonest said no independent people could be involved with Fukushima.

                  “January 1, 2015

                  A Canadian ocean monitoring network says the risk from Fukushima is “insignificant”. The Integrated Fukushima Ocean Radionuclide Monitoring (InFORM) Network involves academic, government & non-governmental organizations, and citizen scientists to acquire data and assess radiological risks to Canada’s oceans from Fukushima’s radioactive contaminants. Samples supplied by Canadian citizens and the Fisheries and Oceans Canada group show that the levels on the Pacific coast of Canada are “so low they pose almost zero risk to human or ecosystem health. Salmon remain safe to eat and the ocean is clean enough to swim in.” The Bedford Institute of Oceanography says that detectible levels of Fukushima radioactivity have reached the continental waters. Bedford’s Dr. John Smith reports, “The resulting large ocean plume of radioactivity dissipated rapidly … but a significant remnant was transported eastward. By June 2013, the Fukushima signal had spread onto the Canadian continental shelf, and by February 2014 it had increased … resulting in an overall doubling of the fallout background from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.” He adds that even at the worst-possible peak, the concentrations will be hundreds of times less than Canadian drinking water standards. As for fish, Smith says “predicted exposure level is many orders of magnitude less” than the baseline safe levels.” University of Victoria’s Dr. Jay Cullen, head of the InFORM project, says radiation levels are actually lower than in the 1960s when nuclear weapon’s tests in the Pacific drove Cesium concentrations up to 80 Becquerels per ton (cubic meter) of seawater. The Fukushima levels are not expected to go above three to five Bq/ton. https://fukushimainform.wordpress.com/

  3. jameshrust November 3, 2013 at 2:22 PM

    The land area estimates are in the ball park for what is really required. They assume a British home use 4300 kilowatt-hours per year; which on U. S. standards is pretty low. In Georgia we average 12000 kilowatt-hours per year. My estimate is 3300 MW nuclear, 10,000 MW wind, and 26000 MW solar. The solar or wind plants will cease operation within 25 years and will be pieces of junk carrying toxic materials that no one wants to claim. The nuclear plants will last fifty years and will generate possibly 5 times as much energy as a wind plant and 16 times as much energy as a solar plant.
    The economics will work out far better for nuclear plants. It is probably ill advised to build power plants on site subject to earth quakes and tsunamis.
    James H. Rust, Professor

    • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2014 at 11:05 AM

      Toxic materials? Like in batteries? That junk can replace radioactive junk: The result is a compound that cement producer Holcim can use both as a
      substitute fuel, replacing coal-ash, and as a raw material, displacing
      some of its need for virgin washed sand. http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1124486/complexities-recycling-begin-bite

      • Joe Dick September 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM

        What about gallium arsenide? Its in our most efficient solar cells. Here, have a teaspoon full of the stuff. 🙂

        • CaptD October 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM

          There is plenty of ☢ in Fukushima and too many other locations and we are not talking teaspoons but mega TONNES of nuclear waste and worse, like corium(s)… :-0

          • Joe Dick October 1, 2014 at 11:31 AM

            Wahhh wahhh wahhh…. all we ever hear from you is Fukushima, Fukushima, Fukushima. Yep. We get it. You don’t like nukes. Now go away and tell other people that don’t care.

          • Peter October 31, 2014 at 2:43 PM

            Could you please tell your poor, ignorant readers what corium(s) are? Simple words, please, for us simple souls.

        • Investigator October 23, 2014 at 9:55 PM
        • Cees Timmerman January 8, 2015 at 10:35 AM

          Please quote relevance in case the links die.
          While solar is a far less polluting energy source than coal or natural gas, many panel makers are nevertheless grappling with a hazardous waste problem. […]
          After installing a solar panel, “it would take one to three months of generating electricity to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state,” said Dustin Mulvaney, a San Jose State University environmental studies professor who conducts carbon footprint analyses of solar, biofuel and natural gas production.
          FEB. 10, 2013

          A solar-panel manufacturing plant in the eastern Chinese city of Haining has been forced to close after hundreds of residents attacked the facility in a 4-day protest over accusations the factory contaminated a nearby river, according to the BBC.
          “”” – DINA SPECTOR
          SEP. 19, 2011

          Chinese factories are known to pollute local streams, but the Chinese government should be able to handle that, unless it’s corrupt.

          • Investigator January 9, 2015 at 1:51 PM

            Not sure I understand your question. Do you not think it relevant that solar panel manufacturing is a nasty process? Do you not think that this revelation should be factored into energy choices?

            • Cees Timmerman January 9, 2015 at 7:50 PM

              I simply stated that bare links don’t say much. Those articles could disappear and then the facts are lost.

    • CaptD September 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM

      jameshrust – Better get your facts correct, Solar has a much longer lifespan than you list above and even you must admit that you don’t have a clue as to how good Solar & Battery tech will be in 20 years, much less 50 years from now! One thing that is for sure is that using Solar (of all flavors) will not cause any radioactive disasters for any reason!

      Here is a futuristic view of what the future has in s