Harry Valentine says

Attempting to create a market for a technology that requires subsidy and protection from competition through regulation, is a formula for creating economic chaos. It is the foundation of a dysfunctional economy. Despite massive direct and indirect investment in wind and solar technologies, other technologies can produce subsidy-free power at much lower cost.

The economic climate in several nations (Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Poland and even the USA) now requires massive reductions in expenditures being directed to renewable energy, mainly solar and wind. A market shake out in renewable energy is now unavoidable.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

While the technology may change you cannot change the fact that the wind cannot be turned on and off and blows when it wants to and the Sun is not out half the time. These are the physical limitations that cause them to be uneconomic without Government help. I do not see that changing any time soon.

As Governments can no longer afford the scale of renewable subsidies the electricity industry will revert to the tried tested and reliable ways of producing electricity. It is just a matter of time and the realization that the great experiment was a costly one that did not work.

Malcolm

Ferdinand E. Banks says

The completely stupid Swedish energy minister wants nuclear dumped and replaced with renewables and alternatives. I gladly repeat what I tell anybody who asks me: THE ENGINEERS AND MANAGERS IN SWEDEN DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT GOOFY AGENDA. In no country do governments talk more about renewables than Sweden, but do less.

And Malcolm. one of the countries in Europe with the best economy is Finland, and as you know they are installing a Gen 3 reactor. There has been a lot of delay and extra expense with that reactor, and so the Finns are now making plans to install even one more. You see, being one of the best educated countries in the world, they get the energy message. The Swedish engineers and managers get it too, but they can't sing that message in thier favorite karaokee bars, and so they pretend that renewables and alternatives have a great future.

I am 100% in favor of investing in renewables and alternatives when it makes economic sense, which means that some subsidies are OK, since voters are so keen on renewables and alternatives. After all, it is better to subsidize renewables than stupid wars on the other side of the world. But what about using some common sense where this issue is concerned.

WES CAMPBELL says

George Morris says

Garth Barker says

Fred Linn says

Or explode in your faces.

bill payne says

http://www.prosefights.org/vacation2012/vacation2012.htm#brown2

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Having worked in the business for well over 40 years now there is no question that nuclear power plants are the safest of all places to work. Those that continue to spew out the "unsafe" mantra have no idea what they are talking about and obviously learned all the technical details from cartoons. As you note Garth if you could move your house onto a nuclear site you would greatly reduce your risks.

Storage of electricity would be great Fred Linn - when you figure it out let me know as it will give the nuclear industry a massive boost. Most nuclear plants run to fulfill base load capacity requirements so if you can use storage to meet the peaks then all nuclear plants can be continuously run and more will be built above base load requirements. Storage greatly lowers the already low cost of nuclear generated electricity and it certainly does not favor windmills - quite the opposite. Since you are a lifetime opponent of anything nuclear (don't get X-rays as the Cobalt 60 isotopes are made in Canadian nuclear reactors) then I would be careful what I wished for.

And to Professor Fred whose wise and witty comments are always a joy to read - of course the Finns have a strong economy - they have politicians who understand that cheap reliable electricity is the foundation of prosperity and not something to make half baked experiments with that do not work technically or economically. Cheap power attracts major industries like metals refining so building another large Generation 3 reactor makes complete sense to them and to me. It also appears to make sense to China, India, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, France and dozens of other countries even the USA who are now (at last) realizing that their fleet of incredibly reliable and efficient nuclear power plants is not going to last forever.

It should not be viewed as a coincidence that Saab - that one time manufacturer of superbly designed vehicles - has now been sold to the Chinese and are now slated to make electric cars. As beautiful as they are Saab vehicles were just far too expensive to compete - certainly in North America. Shutting down the Swedish nuclear industry and filling the streets with electric cars is a recipe for economic disaster. Unfortunately the lunatic politicians in your country believe this is possible when the battery technology is not there to support it and the electrical infrastructure cannot supply the increased load. When the Swedish public realizes they have converted their nation into a third world economy perhaps things will change - or the Finns will annex Sweden.

Swedish politicians must be getting their technical information from cartoons as well.

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Fred Linn says

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-205_162-10007080.html?tag=page

------------" Wes, I do have a very large nuclear plant just down the road from me. Safest place on Earth and no risk to me or my family. Malcolm"------------

Until it isn't safe anymore.

Malcolm Rawlingson says