Comments Tom Blees has made

<!--StartFragment-->

That would be all well and good if wind or solar could provide anywhere near the electricity and 24/7 reliability of a nuclear plant, which contrary to uninformed or misleading opinion can, have, and are being built in 3-4 years, not ten or more. As the new crop of Gen III and III+ reactors come online, you'll see three-year timelines as the norm except in places where political obstacles slow things down. It does no good to tout the benefits of one system that isn't comparable to another. Wind and solar simply cannot provide all the energy we need, and anyone who's done a serious study of the statistics can tell you that. See David MacKay's and Ted Trainer's books, among others, for a serious discussion of what wind and solar can and can't do.

Look at Germany for a case study in the potential of renewables. For over 25 years Germany has had massive public subsidization of wind power to the point where 38% of the world's wind power is produced in Germany, and about half of all the world's solar power. The upshot? Subsidies for this "green" electricity of up to 7 times USA average rates, and Germany now produces about 7% of their energy from wind and a trivial 0.5% from solar (this from a pro-solar website, no less). Worse yet, most of that wind power is produced in a couple months during the winter, with long stretches of the rest of the year where wind turbines are operating at a tiny fraction of that capacity.

If Germany can provide such an insignificant portion of their electricity needs now from their wind and solar, what happens as they switch to an all-electric future? The idea that Germany and the USA and other developed countries can provide all their energy needs from renewables strains credulity to the breaking point if you look at what Germany's done, and the fact that they've got over two dozen coal-fired power plants on the drawing board now is a damning testimony to the failure of their all-renewable fantasy. But even if, against all odds and at staggering cost, Germany and other developed countries could conceivably pull off an all-renewable energy future, would the entire world follow suit? It wouldn't matter a bit if Chinese and Indian coal-fired power plants continued to belch forth CO2. We'd all still be cooked (metaphorically if not literally).

<!--EndFragment-->

Putting eggs in the geothermal basket

Geothermal is a lot trickier than many of its proponents make it out to be. There are precious few areas where it's been practical to tap up to now. It sounds great, but the many technical difficulties of tapping it for major amounts of our power generation have yet to be figured out. So banking on getting those problems solved is irresponsible in the face of galloping climate change. We have to figure out feasible plans utilizing technologies that we KNOW for a fact will work. If others like geothermal end up having major breakthroughs, all the better. But just saying that we have to produce all our energy from renewables (and in ten years, no less) is folly. Even if you include nuclear power as a renewable (which could justifiably be done if you consider Gen IV nuclear), the ten year target is still a pipe dream.

Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Wishing won't make it so

Remember, IT IS POSSIBLE to have a nationwide grid powered almost entirely by renewables.

Possible and feasible are two different things. If you're going to argue against nuclear, first learn about Generation III and, most especially, Gen IV nuclear technology. It shoots virtually all the antinuke arguments down in flames. As for France, if nuclear power was such a loser why would they already be planning their next generation of power plants, why do they have one of the lowest electricity rates (and cleanest air) in Europe, and why would they build so many that electricity is their 4th largest export? Are the French just stupid?

The irony of alleged environmentalists fighting against nuclear power will someday be seen for the absurdity that it is. Hopefully that day will come sooner rather than later, for global warming can be a harsh mistress.

You can learn about real solutions to climate change in my book. Check out the first chapter at my website.

Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

We can beat Stern's goals and save trillions

In my book Prescription for the Planet I analyze Stern's report at length and show how we can far exceed his goals at a cost much less than he suggests even his modest goals would cost. Why shoot for 50% or 80% when you can get to nearly 100%? Check it out and see for yourself.

Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

Bob Wallace, check the numbers

By T. Boone Pickens' own calculations, his wind farm that everybody's so excited about will cost about $15 billion/GW. Japan and Taiwan are building the Generation III GE ABWR nuclear reactors right now for about $1.2-1.4 billion/GW, and they are being built in 3 years. If it costs more to build them in the USA it's only because the system is totally screwed up in that it encourages private utility companies to shamelessly gouge their consumers and absurdly inflate the cost. That's not the problem with nuclear per se, that's a problem with corporate/government shenanigans. We have to get private utility companies OUT of the nuclear power business. Check out my web site, where you can read the first chapter of my book online.

Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet. "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."