I advise all governments to not make new investments in nuclear energy, oil pipe lines and gas fracking, because such investments will become stranded investments by 2016", is what
Hermann Scheer wrote in his book "Energy Imperative", on pg 147.

Scheer is the young economist who wrote the Solar Payment Policy that requires Utilities to pay $0.99 kwh to solar home owners.
This policy has shut down all fracking in Germany.
And shut down 8 nukes, and created 450,000 new solar jobs
for young electricians.
Should we do the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

no FIT more than 19 cents per KWH.

in 2004 they did offer a 57 cents FIT.

We don't have to offer anything like that now, THANKS to the German's solar investment. We owe them.

In the USA, a 10 cent FIT for solar, wind and fuels from wastes would be more than enough. We could could just phase out fossil and nuclear gov breaks and solar, wind and fossil from wastes would win out exponentially fast within 10 years. We would have to ban all anti solar, wind and fuels from waste attacks from gov and industry too.

But we SHOULD give the same sort of gov breaks we gave fossils and nuclear, over the last 100 and 50 years, and charge fossils and nuclear for their deadly pollution and wars.

How do we save the citizens from the cost the fossil and nuclear industry would want to pass on? I say municipalize waste disposal and local distribution substation grid control. Waste recycling and electricity are rights, not privileges in our modern world.

I'm sorry I don't understand about paying $0.99 kwh to solar home owners. Is this to do with homeowners making more energy than they need, and so they sell it to the utilities? Would sure like to know what this means.

Read "Energy Imperative" by Hermann Scheer.

Yes, solar homes make 2X more energy than they need. So they sell the surplus, making $300. month income for the home owner.
This new solar energy then runs over 190 towns across Germany at 100% solar & wind & water.
No need for gas, nukes or coal.
Surplus is also stored in e-car batteries.
If you want this type of solar payment policy in your town, just ask your city council member to copy the policy and pass it for your town. Anyone can do this to shut down nukes.

You are right, my friend. If your advice is taken, our species (and many others we are now destroying) has a chance of surviving.

http://www.runemasterstudio...

http://www.pic4ever.com/ima...

Golden Rule Government: A Lawful System Based on Caring instead of Conquest

How much radiation have we created?!

This is the Low Level Waste….wrap you head around this

The Radiation Still to go into WIPP can Contaminate the Entire Planet

I did some calculation to "bring it home" —just the amount of "low
level" waste they want to still put into WIPP, is enough to, if spread
evenly among all humans, animals, fish, plankton, plants of all sorts,
to bring the entire world up to 70 Bq/lb.

And animals at 30 Bq/lb start having severe health problems

http://nukeprofessional.blo...

Here is the spreadsheet if you want that

https://app.box.com/s/qxuct...

Now think….what if we add in Hanford, all the waste already dumped
into the ocean, Fukushima, Atomic testing, all the spent fuel all over
the world and all the accidents and contaminated areas that they HAVE
successfully covered up. What do you think the Bq/kG would be….

Maybe 50,000 Bq/kG.

For every living thing on the earth, plants and animals

Thanks nuclear, if it ever all gets out, and it will eventually, the net result should be obvious.
Anyone up for a few hours of data collection and calculation?

Solar Wind and Water power are growing and that is good. They still need storage for times when the sun is not shining, the wind is not blowing (or blowing to much, or there is ice on the blades) and the dams are low because of drought (like the Western US). Storage is expensive and inexpensive storage solutions are still being sought in the research labs. Many at EcoWatch call for carbon taxes to make renewables more affordable. This is not a sustainable idea in the long run. Developing areas want energy and they will get it from the cheapest source. Expand renewables but the Greens must re think their long time opposition to nuclear power. Lessons have been learned in the 60 years since the first reactors were built in the 1950's.

Germany cut nuclear power a few years ago. They burn more coal now. The US has maintained 20% nuclear power for the past 30 years. Coal is loosing to cheaper gas and emissions are dropping. Yet the Greens want to cut nuclear power here and stop the building of 5 new plants in the south east. http://www.thirdway.org/mem...

I wonder if the Saudis have seen the handwriting of solar energy on the wall. Given the recent dramatic decrease in the cost of solar energy, they may have come to the conclusion that energy prices in general are headed downward and that many fossil and nuclear assets will indeed become stranded for purely economic, not political reasons. If fossil resources are to be stranded, I'm sure they prefer that shale oil and tar sands be stranded rather than what lies under their own sand. Hence, their interest in market share.

The funny thing is, Saudi Arabia is surely a GREAT place for solar power.

Different people see different things. This is what Mark Konigstein & David Fork said of their bilion dollar Google funded project At the start of REC, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed."

continuing: -

"Those calculations cast our work at Google’s REC program in a sobering new light. Suppose for a moment that it had achieved the most extraordinary success possible, and that we had found cheap renewable energy technologies that could gradually replace all the world’s coal plants—a situation roughly equivalent to the energy innovation study’s best-case scenario. Even if that dream had come to pass, it still wouldn’t have solved climate change. This realization was frankly shocking: Not only had REC failed to reach its goal of creating energy cheaper than coal, but that goal had not been ambitious enough to reverse climate change."

These researchers were unencumbered by an ideological attachment to one particular model, and extraordinarily well-funded. To find out why the planet isn't doomed you need to read: -
http://www.columbia.edu/~je...

Nuke needs to die

There will be a special place in hell reserved for the pro nuke trolls that be, oppy can be partying it up together.

http://nukeprofessional.blo...

I am become death, destroyer of worlds

Here is a short clip of Oppenheimer and his famous quote above.

A reader has suggested the the strange head twist (at 14 seconds in) as
he begins his statement of I am Become Death is actually the devil
entering his body. It sure is odd. And look at his face, the
stress, the introspection, the resignment

In reality the annual deaths due to war has decreased. The dramatic end to WWII saved millions of lives from the impending invasion of Japan. Read your history. Nuclear technology saves lives. The iinconvenient truth about it all. Stop the propaganda.