Welcome to the Energy Blog

  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.



After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum


Blog powered by Typepad

« Vehicle to Grid Technology Demonstrated | Main | EU Could use Biogas to Replace all Imports from Russia by 2020 »

April 11, 2007



--I always thought that tropical and semitropical countries had great potential to produce large quantities of ethanol at low cost and improve their economies at the same time. This is another proof that this is happening.--

Except that biofuels produced by tearing down rainforrests are 10x worse than sticking with petroleum.

If all we're doing is subsidizing the supply of gasoline to depress the price.
We might as well just subsidize it directly and cut out the biofuels entirely.

We'd be far better off making fuel out of coal if thats what we're after.

But if we want to actually achieve any carbon benefits, we better do it damned right.

I wouldn't call this success.
I'd call it an unintended negative consequence.

Sadly the catch 22 is that they won't stop until demand goes away, their crop becomes obsolete, or we bribe them not to with international aid.

Here's hoping electricity or algae takes off soon.
Right Click, Save Target As

Bruce Trotter

1.7 Billion gallons per day seems to be wrong. It is 1.7 Billion gallons per year. A big difference


GreyFlcn, I think you are comparing corn based ethanol and mixing it up with nypa ethanol. Can you provide numbers that shows nypa ethanol is 10x worse than rainforests? There is no subsidy in nypa ethanol, as far as the article is concerned. So why make this insinuation?

It is too expensive to make clean fuel out of coal. GHG sequestration is too costly.

Where are you going to get your electricy to feed the BEVs? It cannot be from coal. That leaves only the nuclear option.

George Bruce

In part of the post it is "per day" in other parts "per year" There is a large difference in magnitude here. Which is it?

Oren Tirosh

Much of the alleged carbon emissions from growing oil palms is from the decomposition of peat as swamps are drained for new agricultural land.

No swamps are drained for growing Nypa (aka Mangrove Palm) because it likes to grow in the mud. It might not be as bad as oil palms after all.


It is 1.7 billion gallons "per year".
Read text and click on "... more" above to read Jim's reference.

Electricity in short term from coal is still more efficient. More (clean and safe) nuclear would be nice. PV, CSP(or CST), and CPV will be providing an exponentially increasing share. Mostly PV.

Hope that ethanol production is easily converted to bio-diesel or bio-butanol. Electric transport is beginning to take hold and will dominate in longer term. We'll need bio-feedstocks for industrial ferilizers and plastics at that point, more than bio-fuels. Maybe we'll still need bio-fuels for aviation?

Hope that they are not tearing down forests for these plantations. Decreasing water vapor (clouds) contributed by forests could be a part of our GW problem. Low level clouds help to cool the earth. Although, total system effects and real percentages of GW contributions are anything but clear ...at least from what I know about.

Kit P.

MDS, nothing increases exponentially for very long. Making electricity with solar is a pipedream, as is various forms of EVs. Well at least until we run out of fossil fuel and uranium. Both coal and biomass is proven technology for transportation fuel. The past environmental impact was ugly, just like oil.

We should continue to investigate alternatives because it is an insurance against blackmail.


Mds, there is no reason to convert ethanol to biodiesel or biobutanol, unless for aircraft fuel, ethanol & methanol are superior fuels to both biodiesel & biobutanol for transportation uses.

Kitp, EV's are no pipe dream, they are totally viable, if only we stopped crooked corporations from suppressing the technology. Although, certainly the Fuel Cell series HEV is at the moment a pipe dream, especially if H2 powered.


Biofuels in general, are really really stupid.

BioFuels are essentially a solar technology.

And asside from Algae (8%), the best crops are only 1-2% effecient at converting sunlight into energy.

And then when you convert it to fuel using the very best possible technology (i.e. Troph Fischer gasification, far better than cellulosic)

Automatically right there you've lost 62% of your energy.

Then to transport it, you've lose about 12% of your energy.

Using the most charitable evaluation, you can only expect to yield 0.88% of the solar energy you had when you began.

(And thats before you hit the engine, where you'd usually lose an additional 80% of the energy)


Solar electric on the other hand are 10-35% effecient.

With a 6-10% effecient tranmission loss before you get to the engine.

For a minimum total of 9.00% of the solar energy being used.
Or a maximum of about 32.9%

EVs are already going to be hitting the market bigtime in the next year.

Sure the pricetag is up there, but the performance is rock solid.

For the price of an EV that will outperform Ferraris and Porches things will look something like this

2007 $92,000 3.5hour recharge
2008 $60,000 10 minute recharge
2009 $40,000 ?? recharge

So on and so forth.

Meantime, the next Prius is looking to make itself somewhere in the $18-20K range, offering 94mpg

And Clean Diesel cars will offer around 45mpg


BioFuels are just a big waste of money.
Yours and mine.

We'd be far better off moving away from liquid fuels, rather than trying to prolong it's innebitable death.


GreyFlcn, I mostly agree with you about BioFuels, and another important point is that it is utterly immoral to waste good agricultural land and precious water to produce fuels for automobiles. Already the price of corn has doubled and this in turn is leading to higher prices for milk and other crops that would be grown where bioethanol corn is grown.

But waste cellulosic material, that is not needed for soil rejuvenation, or can be grown efficiently on scrub lands, without fertilizer or irrigation, is feasible and ethical, and indeed is best used via the Fischer Tropsch process, not fermentation methods. The real advantage of plants is that they are very good at fixing carbon out of the atmosphere, but terrible at solar energy efficiency. So, to maximize the benefit of plants it is desirable to transfer 100% of plant carbon to liquid fuel carbon, thus making carbon neutral liquid fuels. Methanol is probably the best liquid fuel, can be burned at 43% efficiency, combined with the series hybrid EV, the most efficient vehicle is possible, running at upwards of the equivalent of over 100 mpg, using the comparative cost of methanol to gasoline.


re: ycsts

I liked this train of thought, but I believe it's a bit misguided.

As you mention plants are very good at fixing carbon.
Rather than wasting that effort by near instantly putting it back up into the air.

The proper thing to do is take it down and keep it down.

And do this either by maintaining large forrests, or also by increasing the productivity of the oceans. (Since the oceans account for the largest carbon sinks)

But if we did have biomass waste, and we were going to gasify it.
The best thing to do is to leave it as a gas, and use it as a backup to renewables like wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal.

As a "glue" to hold it all together.

But in terms of using it as a liquid fuel, thats something we shouldn't do, since all that does is prolong the time it takes to transition completely away from liquid fuels. (Furthermore you lose quit a lot of the energy from doing that)

Peak Oil isn't a supply issue so much as it is a Price issue.
Let. Oil. Get. Expensive.

Don't try to Stop that from happening
By funneling billions of tax payer dollars into artificially raising the supply.

Instead, spend that money on figuring out how to use as little of that oil as possible. And move Away from it.


People tend to get glossy eyed when they think about biofuels.

But they don't realize just how ineffecient they are.

For instance, the usual thing chanted is
"OMG we have to stop paying Saudi Arabia for Oil"

Completely misguided hype.

The other thing they do is point towards Brazil and go "OMG Look at Brazil, they got independant from Oil by using Ethanol!"

The part they miss is that Brazil still uses Oil for more than 80% of it's fuel.

"Huh wha?"

Brazil is the second largest Oil producing nation in Latin America.

They produce over 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day, and only about 482,000 barrels of ethanol. (Where each barrel contains 30% less energy content)
And they plant to drill a lot more from there on. (Note all the drilling cites planned)

The key being that they don't IMPORT OIL.
But they still Use a hell of a lot of it.

Thats what you call a Political lie.
It's not factually wrong, but it's entirely misleading.


I agree that it is best to avoid use of liquid or especially gaseous fuels, but so far that means battery EV's, which are great, but they don't and likely won't for a long time store sufficient energy for distance travel, remote areas where being away from charging stations is a necessity, for ships and long distance transport vehicles. Fuel use can be reduced to 1/2 to 1/3rd by using the series hybrid EV drive, and another 1/2 or so by using more efficient series hybrid generator engines. Add plugin and you have a winning combo to reduce fuel consumption to probably 1/10th what it is now - and that can easily be made carbon neutral liquid fuel. In other words, problem solved!


Like your analysis. I agree with yourself and Ycsts, ethanol from food sources is not a good idea. We don't already have enough starvation and violence in the world? We have to make it worse? Not good. I'm more in-between on cellulosic ethanol. Liked your point on solar. Agree that we are going there. Same with EVs. They are behind solar PV on curve to becoming economical, but both are on the same path. The transition to significant double digit percents will take some time. I'm thinking cellulosic ethanol can help some in the interim and be used for industrial feedstock as our ground transportation becomes primary electric. I'm not a huge proponent of cellulosic ethanol though. What if we made CTL cleaner and used a fraction of the IRAQ funds (100 or 50 billion) to accelerate use of solar and PHEVs?
"Let. Oil. Get. Expensive."
It is at $60 plus per barrel. You do need to be careful to keep the economy going and it is largely dependent on oil right now. As Vinod Khosla has correctly pointed out, venture capital can provide much more funding than the government. This is true for solar, PHEVs, and EVs. Kill the economy and you actually slow our transition.

Kit P,
I disagree on solar and PHEV/EV.
This has several advantages over nuclear. (I'm not apposed to nuclear. I'm for it, along with solar.)
1. Solar roof panels generate power used primarily at the source. Eliminating transmission losses and reducing that part of cost. (Storage is not an issue for initial replacement of day time peak power replacement in USA sun belt, a huge market.)
2. Home solar panels are a consumer product, so large initial financing efforts are not involved, i.e. easier financing.
3. Rooftop solar panels have no environment site impact. (Solar is the only form of energy production that can make this claim. The PV production plants will have some impact, but even this is lower than others. You will probably argue nuclear is less. OK, nuclear too then.)
Over 15 years ago Paul Maycock suggested that PV cell production plants of 10 MW per year or larger would start to bring decreasing costs from economies of scale. This happened over 6 years ago. Now 100 MW production lines are common and they cannot keep up with demand. The low end of Si panels is down to at least $3/Wp. (The average is still higher at $5/Wp, but it's a supply problem. Profits are higher, so production growth is also very high. No, this does not include installation, but BIPV is addressing this.) First Solar claims they are still profitable if CdTe sales go to $2/Wp. Nanosolar says their SIGS production will be profitable at less than $1/Wp. All are predicting future capability of profitability below $1/Wp. Combined with very low costs of installation due to building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) this will easily be competitive with regular electricity rates. Solar will be providing double digit percentages within 10 years, certainly within 20. It will grow to be one of our major sources. Maybe the greatest source...just like electric street lights at the turn of the century.
I referred Nucbuddy to this link in another post:
http://www.alternet.org/story/45020/ (Good interview with Travis Bradford, author of “The Solar Revolution” – Dec 2006)
Nucbuddy said: "In one sentence solar is our only viable solution and in another it is a small percentage of our total energy source, which is it?"
My answer is: BOTH! It is not our only "viable solution". Nuclear is fine by me, but solar is also one of the major solutions. It is small now, but this is changing fast.

Electric Cars:
The battery technology is already here:
1. Altairnano - 15,000 6 minute charge cycles (once a day for 41 years) with 85% capacity left and energy density greater than NiMH.
2. As GreyFlcn has pointed out, the next Prius (3rd generation) is likely to be more price competitive and will have improved mpg. This is largely due to an improved Li Ion battery.
3. According to recent post at this site, Nissan and NEC claim to have already made Li Ion battery breakthrough and are planning to be in production by 2009. (...and GM's excuse for delaying production of the Volt till 2010 is? ...not really valid if they want to compete.)
I'm sure you will see more examples of fully viable battery solutions in the future. Compare these to EV1 technology of the 1980s. See a trend? The only thing remaining is to bring the cost down.
The cost will come down:
There have been breakthrough improvements on several fronts: Li Ion (Altair, A123, Valence, Electrovaya, Johnson Controls-Saft, Misubishi Heavy Industries, ABT in China, and others are working on this including Toyota & Honda), Lead Acid with graphite or carbon (FireFly, Power Technology, Altraverda, e3, others?), and Super-capacitor (EEStor and Maxwell, with the later being used to augment battery performance). There are too many players with too many improvements. We will see lower prices in the future. Some of these improvements are already causing a technology shift. Again, just compare EVs currently available to GM's EV1, Toyota's RAV4 EV, or Honda's EV of twenty years ago. The lease on an EV1 was equivalent to the mortgage on some houses. Now EVs are just at the expensive end of cars, the price is still coming down, and the performance is way better. We are almost at the cost cross-over point for PHEVs/EVs.

Now consider that cars in the USA are idol 96% of the time:
Put this together with large scale use of solar PV rooftop panels and lower cost for both. The two revolutions will feed off each other. You are seeing, or maybe not seeing, a major shift starting in our energy and transportation systems.


--"Let. Oil. Get. Expensive."
It is at $60 plus per barrel. You do need to be careful to keep the economy going and it is largely dependent on oil right now. As Vinod Khosla has correctly pointed out, venture capital can provide much more funding than the government. This is true for solar, PHEVs, and EVs. Kill the economy and you actually slow our transition.--

Well if that ever became an issue they could just subsidize the price of oil.

Or better yet, subsidize the price of buying more fuel effecient cars.

Rather than paying so much to farm lobbies like Archer Daniels Midland. (Which is just a money pit)
Thats just wasting tax payer dollars, for little to no benefit.

When you're spending $60 to mitigate 1 ton of CO2 emmisions. You know you are doing something wrong. (Since the going rate it closer to $3)

Kit P.

MDS, you did a very good job of describing consumer toys for the very rich. However, not many are going to buy either PV or EV. Second, these technologies do not work. E-P or myself can make them work, but your average Luddite is going to turn them into scrape within a couple of years.

There is no solar trend. There is a complete lack of owners of solar systems bragging about performance. The solar industry will tell you how much they sell.

Solar is always just 10 years away.


Same could be said about
"Nuclear power will be too cheap to meter"

The history of nuclear power is a long series of broken promises ;D

That said, I agree with you on Silicon PV.
Thats never going to be economical.


Thinfilm CIGS on the other hand shows potential due to it's 10x reduction in material, facility capital costs, and highly automated manufacturing.


Kit P,
You're a hoot. Yes, they are toys for the rich. That's how most new tech starts. It is close to changing. PV is already there for some. Last time I was on the big island in Hawaii electric rates were 25 cents per kilowatt hour, flat rate all the time. Solar is cost effective there. Far enough off the grid in continental USA the same is true. Third world areas without the transmission infra-structure same deal. PV is selling. There is over-demand. It will continue to get cheaper and sell more.

The first cell phone I bought was the size of a shoebox and was not cheap. Purchased it for my wife in case of emergency. Early PCs were $10,000. I never purchased one. These were "toys for the rich" back then. Now both are common here and both are in wide use in the third world ...and costs for both continue to go down.
Yes, PV has always been 10 years away, but it is here now. Don't believe me? Fine. Just wait a few years.

I don't know how Si will compete with CIGS either. Same for CdTe competing with CIGS. Maybe rooftop concentrator systems will help Si find a niche? Still it will be an interesting competition. Maybe they will find a way. Winner hasn't been decided yet. Fact that there is a contest is very exciting to me. One of those horses is going to cross the finish line. btw Travis Bradford, author of "Solar Revolution", uses standard Si, with typical economies of scale price reduction (20% price reduction for each doubling of production volume). He predicts PV will be competitive with standard electrical rates within 20 years. I think CIGS will help this happen much faster. Actually, combination of roll-to-roll CIGS and BIPV would put it there in a year or two, if not for the supply problem. Will take some years to catch up with demand.
Here's two links and notes showing Si close behind:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/12/how_long_will_t.html (sort reference to Si shortage – Dec 2006)
“the average of global prices for solar-grade silicon has grown from $35 per kilogram in 2004 to $74 per kilogram this year, and is expected to reach $95 per kilogram next year”
“Polysilicon only costs $25 a kilo to make” “all you need to do is put up more polysilicon plants”
“next-generation polysilicon technology that promises to make polysilicon for $15 to $20 a kilo”

http://news.com.com/Solar-cell+business+poised+for+huge+growth/2100-1008_3-6126962.html AMAT
“By then (2010), a number of solar-cell manufacturers will be running plants with 10 production lines, and each production line will be capable of squeezing out 100 megawatts worth of solar cells a year”
“In 1980, a solar panel cost about $21 per watt.” “Now it's about $2.70 per watt.”
“By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to $1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to $1.30 per watt.”

It's a closer race than you might think.
If a problem comes up with CIGS, then Si or CdTe will still get us there. I agree CIGS looks like it will win out.


Actually CdTe is part of the CIGS panel.
(Well kinda, it's CdSe)

It makes part of the P-N junction that surrounds the CuInGaSe semiconductor.

Generally you have

1. Stainless steel foil
2. CdSe
3. CaInGa + Se2 gas
4. ZnSe
5. ZnO
6. AlO

And then the wiring is done by laminating a thin flim of copper wires embeded in a sheet of plastic.


The other cool part is that they use "Electrostatic printing", instead of "Evaporative sputtering"

In short, rather than evaportating their metal, and letting it waft onto the panel, they instead use electrically charged inert gas atoms to ram into their metal plates and deposit metal atoms onto the stainless steel film.

The difference is a hell of a lot less energy use, and also a difference of about 2 minutes versus 40 minutes production time.


Yes, Nanosolar has printable CIGS with no vapor deposition. HelioVolt CIGS is also printable, but have not seen them state they don't need vacuum equipment. I have almost a dozen others listed, but it is not clear they have CIGS,CIS, or nCIS "printing" processes. They may have.

No, CdTe is PV technology on its own. Telluride is not the same as Selenium.

CdTe PV companies:

http://www.firstsolar.com/index.php (First Solar - 9% module efficiency)

http://www.primestarsolar.com/ (Primestar – company formed June 2006)

Kit P.

I have had a cell phone for about a year. Needed one for business travel. Much better than finding a pay phone and using a credit card. Of course I did not make the phone or the electricity to run the system. Thing fits right in my shirt pocket and I can turn it off when I do not want to be bothered. Works just about everyplace too. In just a short period of time cell phones have gained huge public acceptance yet some loons say they cause brain cancer and kill bees.

When you find a solar panel that fits in my pocket and makes all the electricity I need, anywhere, any time, then we can talk about price.

In the US, nuclear power produces 20% of the electricity with a perfect safety record and a 99% availability. So, GreyFlcn just how many people are going to invest in solar? Nuclear is easier and cheaper with someone else taking the risk just for the privilege of making your meter turn backwards a few hours a few days a year.

In other words, there is no compelling reason to go solar. Solar is good for image but not a very good way to make electricity. Again, let me know when solar is more than 0.1 % of the market.

Ronald Brak

Personally, I run everything off a nuclear power plant I carry in my pocket. It's warm and gives off steam so I use it to iron my clothes too.


Remind me, what public risk is there involved with solar panels?

Are we trying to prevent terrorists from getting ahold of it?

Do we have to lock it away inside an intricate underground catacomb when we're done with it?

Do we have the federal government paying for all that, and the R&D, and the insurance, and the loans?


Last I checked, the only "risk" involved with solar is that electricity will suddenly go dirt cheap, and you would have payed too much.

Which isn't such a bad thing either way.


That said, the current generation of silicon solar isn't too good.

However Concentrating Solar Power, and Thinfilm CIGS solar are perched to outcompete nuclear on a raw performance basis.


Now take into account Nuclear has gotten $12 billion dollars from the 2005 Energy Act.


And continues to get about 0.8billion per year.

While solar only gets about 0.2 billion from the DOE.


Then all the expenses of the DOD program.


You want to talk "Risk"? Solar doesn't have risk other than the economic risk to the consumer.

Nuclear has huge risks, very little of which go to the plant operators. Almost all of which goes towards taxpayers.

kit P

GreyFlcn, to start with there is the public risk of getting hit by the truck delivering the solar panel from the factory to the roof. In absolute terms, that risk of getting hit by a truck is much greater than 'huge' risk that GreyFlcn claims for nukes. After 50 years the US has a perfect record, no one has been hurt by radiation form nukes.

There is a provision in the 2005 Energy Act for the first 6000MWe of new generation built to get the same PTC that wind now gets. The PTC is capped at $250 per plant per year.

I am in favor of solar getting a PTC too, big enough to become a viable commercial source of electricity. At this point in time, solar has only demonstrated that scam artist can make money selling worthless junk to well intentioned suckers. I will be trilled if the likes of FPL can make money making electricity with solar.


re: Kit P.
--GreyFlcn, to start with there is the public risk of getting hit by the truck delivering the solar panel from the factory to the roof.--

Lol, Beware!
Terrorists are seeking this solar attack technology as we speak.


re: Kit P.
--After 50 years the US has a perfect record, no one has been hurt by radiation form nukes.--

Actually if you look at the stats. It's "nuclear plants don't lose as much man hours as coal".

But to say that they haven't gotten "hurt" at all is a specious claim.

Especially when you include the mining and the waste, and the wastewater leaks.

The advantage there is that cancer doesn't kill very quickly, and when it doesn't it's harder to link it directly back to the plant.


As for the current Silicon Solar Panels being a scam. Yes, you are absolutely correct.

Even heard a few people who work at solar facilities mention that the current solar panels are only worthwhile for making the consumer feel good.

And usually the savings offered by the panels, are lower than the interest you would gain by keeping that ammount of money in the bank.


That said, Industrial Concentrating Thermal Solar, and Thinfilm CIGS solar are just about to outcompete nuclear.

And wind is already there.

They do however lack baseload.
And thats the only thing nuclear has going for it at this moment.

The trick being, load balancing can easily be done with pumped hydro, demand-response.

And my favorite, charcoal biomass run inside a direct carbon fuel cell.

Or even simpler, bio-methane from decaying organic matter run inside a power plant.


GreyFlcn wrote: load balancing can easily be done with pumped hydro, demand-response.

...Then why is pumped-storage not being used right now?


re: NucBuddy
--...Then why is pumped-storage not being used right now?--

Because it is.

Not sure what the actual capacity is,
but the parasitic load it uses is about 8 billion Kw/Year.

Nothing to sneeze at.


As for Demand-Response, thats big money.

Here for instance is a concept which could offer 500GW of buffer capacity.



Your link "500GW of buffer capacity" link talks about "cold storage", which has been known for at least several hundred years more-generally as supply and demand. Food warehousers have, for a long time now, been selectively running their compressors at night to take advantage of low rates. What is in demand is a cheap way to actually store and retrieve electricity.

The reason that rates are cheap at night and expensive during the day is that magical hyped storage schemes such as pumped-storage are not used. Why is it that pumped-storage is not used, despite the massive demand for cheap storage?

You previously said, "The trick being, load balancing can easily be done with pumped hydro, demand-response." Perhaps you meant to imply that pumped-storage would benefit inconsistent power sources more than they would benefit consistent ones. If that is what you meant to imply, what is your reasoning?

These are diesel peaking-plant generators:

They are used because the magical storage scheme you were talking about, pumped storage, is not used. Why is it that pumped-storage, if it is such a good idea and could so easily be implemented, is not used?

If it is so easy and sensible to build pumped-storage facilities, why is it that diesel and gas-turbine plants are being built instead of coal and nuclear plants? Why is it that America's coal plant fleet only has a capacity factor of 72.6 percent, despite technically being able to run at higher capacity factors? Is it because many of them are turned off at night? If it is so cheap to install pumped storage, why are coal-plant owners not taking advantage of it?

Why is France not taking advantage of it?

France's nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF's capacity and hence are used in load-following mode and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%.

Large reason you have diesel generators being built isn't for peaking, so much as it is backup power.

kit p

GreyFlcn seems to be hung up on terrorism. Terrorist can not hurt you with radioactive material from a commercial nuclear power plant. If GreyFlcn chooses to peddle irrational fear fear I will try to be polite about it.

GreyFlcn does not understand very large or small numbers. Zero is the number of people exposed to measurable amounts of radiation outside the fence of a US commercial power plants. Therefore the risk of cancer is zero.

Radiation workers are exposed to radiation and carefully monitored. The cancer risk is a very small number.

An example of a large number is the amount of radiation it takes to hurt you. Millions of Americans have been been exposed to huge doses and many die. However, if you survive the risky voluntary medical treatment; the cancer risk is a very small number. Few risk have been studied and are as well understood as radiation exposure.

GreyFlcn called my claim 'specious' but notice he did facts to support his position. For example, the number hurt by rad exposure in the world has been carefully documented. The benefits of putting nuclear reactors in containment building to prevent exposure are well established.

It is interesting that GreyFlcn would bring up pumped storage as an example of a safe technology. Within the last few years two adults and two children were by the failure of a pumped storage facility in Missouri. It was a miracle the family was not killed.

Again, the nuclear industry has a perfect record protecting its customers. The electric generating industry has a near perfect record. Why do the likes of GreyFlcn keep posting unsupported claims?


--Zero is the number of people exposed to measurable amounts of radiation outside the fence of a US commercial power plants. Therefore the risk of cancer is zero.--

First off, you discount the mining, the transport, and the waste handling.

Second off, a lack of transparency doesn't mean a perfect record.


I thought that butanol was a more efficient fuel than ethanol and could be transported via existing distribution channels. am I wrong about this??


ive uploaded a video on how a traditional farmer collect nypa sap . and in there are a brief of information of nypa fruticans


The Best Sustainable and Genuine Green Renewable Energy Sources In The Globe


The comments to this entry are closed.

. .

Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles