Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13604RE: [renewable-energy] Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy - Forbes

Expand Messages
  • Mike Redler
    Aug 9, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      Nuclear power plants are largely owned by integrated energy companies. They are interested in generating electricity through the use of a centralized power scheme, and work closely with fossil fuel companies for part of their business. As such they share a common opposition to renewables, an energy technology which is highly adaptable to a distributed power scheme. Their combined business and political influence affords them the ability to spread their propaganda through publications like the Economist.


      From: renewable-energy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:renewable-energy@yahoogroups.com]
      Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:55 PM
      To: renewable-energy@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [renewable-energy] Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy - Forbes

      Readers of The Economist may have been surprised to read in its 26 July 2014 “Free exchange” section on page 63, or in its online version, the “clear” conclu­sion that solar and wind power are “the most expen­sive way of reducing green­house-gas emissions,” while “nuclear plants…are cheaper,” so governments are foolish to boost renewables and mothball nuclear.

      In each of the past three years, the world has invested more than a quarter-trillion dollars to add over 80 billion watts of renew­ables (excluding big hydro dams). That growth is accelerating: solar power is scaling faster than cellphones. Big European utilities lost €0.5 trillion in market cap, as an Economist cover story fea­tured, not because renewables couldn’t compete, but because they competed all too well, wiping out old power plants’ profits. The same is happening to some well-running U.S. nuclear plants, now facing closure as uneconomic just to operate.

      Shouldn’t the runaway market success of renewables—soon to beat grid power on price, says Bloomberg , in most of the world—have raised a flag at the Eco­no­m­ist article’s conclusion?

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic