About Social Media Today
Comments by Eric Lane Subscribe 
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
IK, why do you fear change so much?
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
I K, your argument is either that of a defeatist or an oil and gas front man. In San Antonio, TX, Nexolon America is building a 400 megawatt solar plant that will power 70,000 homes, building a solar panel manufacturing plant and creating over 800 jobs paying in excess of $44,000 a year. They have a power purchase agreement already in place with CPS Energy.
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
TSvi Howard Epstein,
One of the mistakes I think many people make is believing it's all or none. For example, why is it so hard to have solar power as the main energy source and natural gas and even coal as backup energy sources when needed? Until nuclear is as safe as solar, I can't see going down that path. Call it the 'prevention' principal. There will always be Black Swans like Fukushima and it's not good enough to argue that it can't happen anywhere else. It will. Again, I simply do not understand why it is so difficult to take the safe, obvious route instead of the much more dangerous and expensive one.
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
Fukushima. Has anyone tallied the cost of that little nuclear disaster? Oh, and by the way, it's still on-going. They are already discovering thyroid problems in California and the West Coast. But why bother calculating that little cost in the equation. After all it will never happen again, right?
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
One thing we know about nuclear power, the cost will always be going up, up, up. One thing we know about solar power, the cost will continue to go down, down, down. One of the reasons solar panel manufacturers are having such a difficult time right now surviving. But, add the cost of storing nuclear waste for between 10,000 and 1,000,000 years and I think any comparison is at best humorous and at worst arrogant ignorance.
On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?
I K, do we live on the same planet? The state built nuclear power plants? What do you mean? Here in Texas, nuclear power plants were built primarily by power companies. The recent attempt to build new power plants here in south Texas were being designed and built by TEPCO, Tokyo Electric Power Company. The same company that owns and runs Fukushima-Daiichi. Before the tsunami and disaster at the nuclear power plant, five people on the energy company board in San Antonio, behind closed doors and without any public input, committed $100 million to start the nuclear construction process. Their argument was not whether we should proceed with nuclear power but if we did not, we would lose the $100 million. Nothing secretive, huh?
On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?
IK, the Manhattan project was a wartime endeavor. I would argue that the nuclear industry was born in secrecy, grew up in deceit, and lives on lies. The biggest ones being safety and the waste created, two subjects you did not address. You may see my arguments as coming from a hater. I see them as coming from common sense. Why demanding safety and environmental responsibility is considered 'hating' is beyond my understanding. It seems to me the onus should be on you to prove me wrong with more than personal attacks.
On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?
Paul, I am a Nuclear Hater. Do I really think Nuclear Scientists and its proponents are that stupid or uncaring about our mutual planet . . .? I think that is the wrong question. It's like asking a policeman if he thinks the world is dangerous. Of course it is, he or she will respond. And every home should have bars on it, an alarm system, a gun for protection, etc. The same with a nuclear scientist. Do we need nuclear energy? Of course we do, he or she will respond. Why? Because I'm a nuclear scientist and without nuclear my job is obsolete. The nuclear scientist is the last person to ask about the safety of nuclear power. Common sense is were you begin. And anytime you are going to have a waste stream that is going to remain dangerous to human existence for a longer period of time than recorded human history and, in some cases, longer than the existence of humanity itself, I think it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to create such waste. I don't need to listen to a nuclear scientist telling me not to worry my pretty little head on such matters. I also would argue that one Fukushima-Daiichi is one too many. Why would we want to expose anyone, anywhere to such a possibility? Until nuclear power is as safe as solar power, until nuclear waste is as dangerous as the water I drink, the nuclear path is the road to human extinction.
Just imagine if we started becoming dependent on nuclear power in this country. We would be building hundreds and hundreds of new nuclear power plants. Within fifty years, between the leaks, human errors, Black Swans, and nuclear waste created, we would be living and breathing radiation on a massive scale. We already are. It just would get much, much worse. Does this make me a fanatic? It's better than the alternative.
On Will PG&E Be the First Utility To Fall To Solar Energy?
My problem with this article is first and foremost the title; Will PG&E be the fist Utility to fall for Solar Energy? At best, this is a leading question. At worst, it is meant to assuage fossil and nuclear fuels. It is obvious that fossil fuels are causing global climate change and that nuclear power is a threat to human existence both in the present and in the future with the waste created. You don't 'fall' for solar. What we are seeing, finally, is the market dictating common sense; the use of a non-leathel energy source that is renewable and continous. The oil and gas industry has done and continues to do everything in its power (which is quite extensive including owning most of our politicians) to stop or delay solar power. It's greed knows no limits. We are reaching the point were solar is cheaper than any other energy source and instead of celebrating and moving forward at full speed, we speak in negatives. I celebrate solar even though I know that the nuclear industry is lurking behind the scenes.
On Facts on Fracking: Three Things You Need to Know
An additional thought and the article is worth checking out: Natural gas is a bridge to nowhere. It undermines progress on clean energy and is dangerous for our climate. http://clmtr.lt/cb/rDc
On Facts on Fracking: Three Things You Need to Know
Jessica, I disagree with your opinion. The issue is not what environmentalists say about fracking but what the oil and gas industry don't say. To argue that fracking doesn't cause earthquakes may be true, but it is way to early to pass such a judgement. In fact, evidence seems to indicate the exact opposite. The same with the isue of fracking fluid. First, we don't really know the content of the fluid/s being used in fracking. The oil and gas companies won't tell us. Given this, how can you possibly argue that fracking fluid will not give anyone cancer? You can't. You don't know. I have to agree with Max. Your piece is more a shill for the fracking/oil and gas industry than good journalism. If it had appeared in my local newspaper I would have wondered how much you were being paid by the fracking industry to write this piece.
On Energy Finance: German Solar Four Times Higher Than Finnish Nuclear Energy
Paul O, peak power usage is during the day. I have said all along that we can start by using solar when it is at its best, during the day and, at night, use what we are using now, natural gas, coal, etc. until solar science takes care of any issues. That's what CPS will be doing. Why people think it has to be all or nothing is beyond my comprehension. If we start to use solar during peak times, we already cut coal, nuclear, etc.usage by 2/3rds. Use wind power at night and to fill gaps first and you cut down on polluting industries even more, right now. I would say that is substantial and it wouldn't take long before other ideas surface. If we can make our energy power sources sustainable, then our lifestyles can continue to improve and grow. If we continue down the path we are going, science indicates we are headed toward extinction. Am I the crazy one here?