Germany’s solar panels produce more power than Japan’s entire Fukushima complex

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
ABCee
ABCee's picture

NO MORE NUKES!

Germany is the world leader in installed solar photovoltaic panels

NO MORE NUKES!

Comments

Calperson
Calperson's picture
But I like to use my

But I like to use my electricity at night, when I need lights and power to cook dinner. What then?

EdNv
EdNv's picture
My goodness, I respected Thom

My goodness, I respected Thom until I heard his near hysteria over nuclear power.Please educate yourself.

I would easily live next to Palo Verde (if it weren't in Arizona), Diablo, and I used to live near San Onofre and envied the workers there every time I drove by.

Being from Nevada, I have read nearly everything ever published related to fission and fusion and I still track high energy physics today, including Physical Review Letters (although my trig lacks a bit.) -- China Syndrome -- REALLY, are you like 6??!....

Not sure if I can believe anything you stand for again,

Ed from the nuclear state

stwo
stwo's picture
Quote:In 2006, Germany's

Quote:
In 2006, Germany's Angela Merkel was hailed as the "Green Chancellor" for promising to rid her country of coal and nuclear power in its bid to give a clean energy "world lead." Three years on and Merkel's government actively supports the construction of a new generation of 26 coal-fired power plants as well as keeping Germany's nuclear power stations open.

In addition she wants special protection for German heavy industry via free cap-and-trade permits. A powerful German industry, the need to remain competitive and a desire to work with the lights on all combined to help Ms. Merkel "reconnect."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=505738

downix
downix's picture
Ok, now, how many square feet

Ok, now, how many square feet do those panels cover vs how many square feet does Fukushima cover?  

Jkirk3279
Jkirk3279's picture
Calperson wrote: But I like

Calperson wrote:

But I like to use my electricity at night, when I need lights and power to cook dinner. What then?

Either you're being funny or you honestly don't know.

More electricity is used during the day than at night anyway.

Solar photovoltaic plants partner well with Natural Gas fired plants for after dark. NG fires up fast and shuts down fast too.

Solar Thermal plants using molten salt for heat storage could run day and night, with six days of buffer storage.

It's just a matter of storing the heat in thermal tanks underground.

For small scale stuff like solar panels on your house, a DARPA project found that you can use a cobalt catalyst to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas.

The water in a 1 liter bottle would provide enough hydrogen to run your house all night, if you feed it to one of the new Bloom Energy fuel cells.

Jkirk3279
Jkirk3279's picture
"- China Syndrome -- REALLY,

"- China Syndrome -- REALLY, are you like 6??!...."

No... He's a successful entrepreneur who has started several businesses.

If you think there's no danger, perhaps you should educate yourself.

If the nuclear materiel cannot be brought under control, a steam explosion is quite possible.

The cooling pumps are ruined. Electricity was restored too late.

The Japanese are still desperately pumping in seawater; the cooling ponds may run dry because nobody can get close enough to refill them even by helicopter.

The tunnels under the plant are flooded with radioactive water that would kill you in minutes.

And I suspect the workers that bravely hung in there to save the plant will be dead in a few months.

As for Nevada, I do envy something about your State.

You've got all that sunlight to power Concentrating Solar Plants.

Which never give off radioactive steam or melt down.

Did you hear the one about the leak at the Solar Plant?

Everyone for a hundred miles around got a tan.

Jkirk3279
Jkirk3279's picture
downix wrote: Ok, now, how

downix wrote:

Ok, now, how many square feet do those panels cover vs how many square feet does Fukushima cover?  

Funny you should ask. How many square feet are needed to mine the fuel, process it, smelt it, and operate the plant that is currently melting down?

For that matter, Japan could put photovoltaics or solar thermal offshore.

Think floating photocells on rafts. Solar Thermal could be done on oil derricks.

bobbler
bobbler's picture
Why does everyone keep going

Why does everyone keep going on about the limitations of solar?  My guess would be all the money from the nuclear lobby, being used to mis-inform people and politicking behind the scene (as well as digging up limitations of green)..    Nuclear has much more severe limitations, because its so damn dangerous..  Add up all the green technologies (hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, to name a few), and it would be cheaper and safer than nuclear..  And generate jobs as well.  

To the crackpot that says nuclear plants are safe..  This is not ad-hominum..   You said nuclear was safe.. Obviously this is not the case..  How many dead from Chernobyl for example..  How many will die from Japans accident?   How many will die going forward from the radioactive particles released into the environment?   I suspect the best scientists cannot answer this last question (but I bet you and Rush and hannitty have an answer)..  So is it responsible to gamble everyone’s future to more sickness?  

I believe we have more risky nuclear power plants today because the military wanted plutonium to make bombs.. There are safer ways to use nuclear to generate power..  So add to a meteor, earth quakes, tsunamis, terrorism etc.. add corporate profits, and the military’s blundering to all the ways we can have more nuclear accidents.. 

 

libertarian vot...
libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
If solar and these hydrogen

If solar and these hydrogen cells are so great, the only thing I can think of that would prevent power companies from rushing in would be some kind of laws preventing them. An unfortunate side effect of pushing even well-meaning legislation is the opportunity for special interests to corrupt it.

Zenzoe
libertarian voting for Tea

libertarian voting for Tea Party wrote:

If solar and these hydrogen cells are so great, the only thing I can think of that would prevent power companies from rushing in would be some kind of laws preventing them. An unfortunate side effect of pushing even well-meaning legislation is the opportunity for special interests to corrupt it.

We meet again...  ;-)     So, "...some kind of laws preventing them?" How about the massive tax-payer subsidies —thus, massive profits— giving the power companies incentives to stick with dirty coal and dirty nuclear?  Ever hear of that?  Are they not a corrupt special interest?  And there ya go—license, literally, to do damage to us all.

Whenever you hear the arguments in favor of nuclear power, they always say nuclear is so much "safer" than coal, that so many fewer have died on account of nuclear disasters than coal.  You never hear them make the proper comparison, which is to compare both coal and nuclear to green technologies.  False comparisons: it's how hey spin it. They can't help themselves; they have a vested interest, and so does every politician who takes contributions from nuclear and coal industries, including my Rep. and my President.

libertarian vot...
libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
Zenzoe wrote:massive

Zenzoe wrote:
massive tax-payer subsidies—license, literally, to do damage to us all.

Totally agree.

Zenzoe wrote:
they always say nuclear is so much "safer" than coal, that so many fewer have died on account of nuclear disasters than coal.  You never hear them make the proper comparison, which is to compare both coal and nuclear to green technologies.

I assume that few people have indeed been killed in any way by windmills and solar panels. I'd like to see an effectiveness comparison with the special interest dust cleared. I did hear something this week about windmills not being as effective as advertised because, for some reason, they (certain ones?) had to be shut down when the wind got too high. Also, that solar panels require water to keep them clean (not sure how much, or how labor-intensive, but is especially problematic in the desert).

Kind of off-topic, but I read something in an old book (1971 or so?) which tempered my enthusiasm for bureaucratic means of going green: A federal law mandated that localities reduce pollution in their water by a certain rigid percentage, but since Anchroage, AK had such clean water, the only way they could do this was to pay fish processors to dump offal into the water (perfectly legal, I presume), so they'd have something to remove.

Cheesebone
Cheesebone's picture
I certainly wouldn't want to

I certainly wouldn't want to detract from the prospect of working towards renewable energy sources, but I think this is the article you were referring to and it really is an interesting read.

http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

libertarian vot...
libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
Cheesebone

Cheesebone wrote:
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

AWESOME! Thanks for the best article on energy production I've ever read. This I will email widely and encourage others to do the same. Shame on both sides for not shouting more what this story reveals has been known for years.

For the convenience of those who want to include a summary in their email, and for those who don't want to read the whole thing, here are its main points:

1. Due to the inconsistency of wind, power plants have to keep running as they can't suddenly start.

2. Stats don't account for wind inconsistency, reduced efficiency by grouping turbines together, or power used to run or build them (including massive foundations)--nor the fact that they have to shut down when winds get too high. Countries have ceased new or existing subsidies as a result.

3. Construction of windmills has severe effects on the nearby land, as does reinforcing the roads needed to bring such *tonnage* (see below) to the wilderness.

4. The fast blades kill predatory and migratory birds in far greater numbers than people can see before they're scavenged.

5. They produce noise which can be disruptive to humans and animals for miles and, because of the flickering they can cause, require unaesthetic night lighting which uses electricity and distracts birds.

6. They fling ice masses and leak oil, are destroyed by lightning strikes, reduce property values and kill tourism (well, that's one way to use less energy).

libertarian vot...
libertarian voting for Tea Party's picture
"see below" above referred to

"see below" above referred to an image which pasted readily from the article but didn't show here

snowmaniac
snowmaniac's picture
Thanks cheesebone, great

Thanks cheesebone, great link. I have some friends and relatives that need to see that. When it comes to energy there’s no free lunch. People need to realize that every form of energy production has it’s associated cost and risk.

snowmaniac
snowmaniac's picture
Another thought occurs to me

Another thought occurs to me on windmill subject this morning. When there’s an oil spill with oil covered birds the tv news is all over it. Strange how I haven’t seen any video on main stream media  (Pravda as I call them) or even on FOX showing dead birds under windmills. I know why mainstream media would choose to ignore this but am curious why Fox would. Sometimes I think they are taking this “fair and balanced’ thing to far. Or maybe they figure liberals would accuse them of killing these birds and piling them up under a windmill and figure what’s the point.

bobbler
bobbler's picture
I cant imagine nuclear is

I cant imagine nuclear is safer than coal.. I am concerned about bio accumulation discussed previously (where it gets in the algae, little fish eat the algae, bugger fish eat the little fish, then we eat the fish..  And our bodies do not pass thruogh, instead absorb as iron, potassium, iodine, and calcium)..  If anyone were able to do an actual comparrison, how many will suffer and die of cancer now and in the future because of radioactive particles released into the environment?  Some of these poisons do not dissipate over time (at least it is my belief; that some may bio accumulate up the food chain for a very long time).. 

Zenzoe wrote:
Whenever you hear the arguments in favor of nuclear power, they always say nuclear is so much "safer" than coal, that so many fewer have died on account of nuclear disasters than coal.  You never hear them make the proper comparison, which is to compare both coal and nuclear to green technologies.  False comparisons: it's how hey spin it.

Jkirk3279
Jkirk3279's picture
"the only thing I can think

"the only thing I can think of that would prevent power companies from rushing in"

Yeah.

Well, I had a long talk with a retired Exxon Board Member in 1992.

He had a lot of hostility toward solar.  

I told him about Concentrating Solar, and he denied such a thing was possible.

Even bet me $50 I couldn't prove it was "commercially feasible".

I think the reason the Energy companies haven't "rushed in", is that they can't monopolize sunlight.

They can corner the market in oil;  natural gas; and coal.   Crowd out any competition and own the market.

But they can't do that with sunlight.    

The resource there is land.   Any competitor that could license their own solar power plant can fight them, potentially running down the price of electricity.

So they've just turned a blind eye to concentrating solar.

Until Google got into it...

I just went on a tour of our local Electrical Co-Op.  They showed off their solar panels and gleefully described all the costs of putting them in.  

Including insisting they had to pay thousands of dollars in higher property taxes since installing the panels !

Uh... I kind of think they have a bias here.  

Never heard of anybody paying $13,000 a year in taxes to run one stand of solar cells.

 

 

bobbler
bobbler's picture
MONEY+POLITICS=NUCLEAR.. 

MONEY+POLITICS=NUCLEAR..  This is a good example.. As thom said how far down the google list does real science start to appear?   Not counting "bought" scientists (this is really sad; that we non experts must “choose” our experts.. and IMNSHO, corporate scientists come up with corporate BS to get paid).. 

There are lots of research data on problems with green, yet the whole media and favorable articles everywhere all over the place telling us nuclear power is safe.  This obviously goes against common sense..  The reason is money in politics (follow the money trail ~  politicians are bribed ~ bought by campaign contributions, or whatever terminology you want to use for the bribery) where said money in politics greases the wheels for nuclear, because nuclear is the most profitable for big business.. 

I re read the article because of all the posts praising the article..  I remain suspicious (not knowing what to believe) because of big money supporting nuclear (buys so much media, including multiple websites, so then how are we to know what is the truth here)..  Every time I research a similar issue, big money is lying, and it looks that way here too..

 

Cheesebone wrote:

I certainly wouldn't want to detract from the prospect of working towards renewable energy sources, but I think this is the article you were referring to and it really is an interesting read.

http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

DougP
DougP's picture
Daniel Nocera of MIT, getting

Daniel Nocera of MIT, getting closer to making hydrogen from water economically feasable.

Short video on process: http://youtu.be/k7ok8cOJbmo

Long video on power needs of the future. http://youtu.be/ZAkM_dV6CFs

 

 

micahjr34
Instead of massive wind or

Instead of massive wind or solar "farms,"  I suggest "small" wind turbines and "small" solar cells.   They would not replace external power sources entirely,  but it would be a start.   However,  no matter how long the planet has coal and oil reserves,  when they run out,  economic feasibility will no longer be an issue.

shalwechat
shalwechat's picture
bobbler wrote: Why does

bobbler wrote:

Why does everyone keep going on about the limitations of solar?  My guess would be all the money from the nuclear lobby, being used to mis-inform people and politicking behind the scene (as well as digging up limitations of green)..    Nuclear has much more severe limitations, because its so damn dangerous..  Add up all the green technologies (hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, to name a few), and it would be cheaper and safer than nuclear..  And generate jobs as well.  

To the crackpot that says nuclear plants are safe..  This is not ad-hominum..   You said nuclear was safe.. Obviously this is not the case..  How many dead from Chernobyl for example..  How many will die from Japans accident?   How many will die going forward from the radioactive particles released into the environment?   I suspect the best scientists cannot answer this last question (but I bet you and Rush and hannitty have an answer)..  So is it responsible to gamble everyone’s future to more sickness?  

I believe we have more risky nuclear power plants today because the military wanted plutonium to make bombs.. There are safer ways to use nuclear to generate power..  So add to a meteor, earth quakes, tsunamis, terrorism etc.. add corporate profits, and the military’s blundering to all the ways we can have more nuclear accidents.. 

 

bobbler,

They go on about the limitations of wind and solar because it takes them out of their comfort level. They also go on about limitations because that all they hear about.  According to US Fish and Wildlife Service this below list is the most common man made premature deaths of birds in the US.

“·  Collisions with buildings kill 97 to 976 million birds annually

·  Collisions with high-tension lines kill at least 130 million birds, perhaps more than one billion
Collisions with communications towers kill between 4 and 5 million based on “conservative estimates,” but could be as high as 50 million

·  Cars may kill 80 million birds per year

·  Toxic chemicals, including pesticides, kill more than 72 million birds each year

·  Domestic/feral cats are estimated to kill hundreds of millions of songbirds and other species each year

 

Many people who comment about the limitations of solar have never experienced living in or setting up household PV system.  Many probably cannot tell me off the top of their head a compare and contrast of a 12v system vs. a 24v system or understand what the advantages of a MPPT system are (no Google searches). Myself, I have lived in and constructed PV systems. Myself, I feel I have more firsthand experience with PV systems then those watching a second hand news source that has no obligation to the truth.  

shalwechat
shalwechat's picture
Here is an "interesting read"

Here is an "interesting read" about the interesting read:

The Problem with ‘A Problem with Wind Power’
The Distortion
"No power plants have been shutdown in other countries with wind turbines because wind is an intermittent resource.

The Truth
Both Germany and Sweden have shut down nuclear reactors with the intent of supplying the loss of capacity with wind power (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8058171/)&(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4536203.stm)

The Distortion
If you build wind turbines you need backup generation

The Truth
Electric grid systems can handle a certain percent of wind power without needing additional generation. The 140MW able to be produced by the wind park is within these parameters. The grid is already designed to compensate for loss-of-load contingencies when large power plant units suddenly become unavailable

The Distortion
Because other electric generators need to be running at lower efficiencies in ‘spinning reserve’ they will actually pollute more than the avoided emissions from the wind turbines

The Truth
The fact is: electrical generating units are constantly varying their outputs, starting and stopping, as the demand for electricity rises and falls throughout the day. When not running or burning less fuel, they pollute less!

The Distortion
Other countries are reducing their subsides for wind power

The Truth
This is what is supposed to happen with any industry as it reaches a sustainable point in any market. E.g. Spain began to reduce subsides in 2002 and their wind generating capacity still grew 33% in the last two years. (in the USA fossil fuels still receive very large subsides despite overwhelming market penetration)

The Distortion
The German Energy Agency report issued in February 2005 said increasing wind generation would raise costs by 3.7 times

The Truth
Completely false. We encourage you to visit the agencies website and read their report to see for yourself that Mr.Rosenbloom’s claim was uniformed (http://www.deutsche-energie-agentur.de). The true additional cost per household is 12 euro a year

The Distortion
The US Fish and Wildlife Service rejected the use of monopole towers as a means to mitigate bird deaths

The Truth
Completely False, the document Mr.Rosenbloom cites, actually promotes the use of monopoles to mitigate bird deaths. It appears he didn’t read his own citation.(http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.pdf , pg.6 statement # 1)

 

Laborisgood
Laborisgood's picture
Without question, solar and

Without question, solar and wind power has limitations.  But those limitations are on the human side of the equation, not the nature side of the equation.

The first law of thermodynamics states energy can't be created or destroyed and the second law states that you will always have losses in energy conversion.  Therefore, there is no free lunch with any type of energy.  However, to refuse to make use of the energy that is literally dropping out of the sky is beyond foolish, even if we could only do it at a 20% conversion efficiency.  Money is the only obstacle in our way of expanding our usage of this "free" energy and once we start going full tilt in that direction, the money "obstacle" will disappear.  You can't sell the sun or the wind, but I suppose they will come up with some commodities future gambling deal.

The math on how many wind turbines and solar panels we would need to power the entire world (also factoring in their inherent deficiencies) would make it abundantly clear that they alone are not going to solve our energy problems and other "clean and renewable" energy sources run headlong into the laws of thermodynamics as all energy does.

We (the entire planet) need to make a fundamental shift towards realistic energy usage which takes all the freebies that nature provides, but does not obliterate our planet in the process.  Yet it is childish to expect to throw a switch one morning and find all fossil and nuclear energy to be gone overnight.  Both nuclear and fossil can have a place in our reasonable energy portfolio, but they both should become a much smaller part of that portfolio.

Herbert W
Herbert W's picture
Quote:If solar and these

Quote:
If solar and these hydrogen cells are so great, the only thing I can think of that would prevent power companies from rushing in would be some kind of laws preventing them

Simple, the "Good-Ol-Boy" system in place now governing the electrical power companies won't allow it.

If Southern Company, Gulf Power, PG&E etc went solar, how would GE, Westinghouse, and all the other companies get by if not for the massive parts required for Coal Fired Plants would suddenly vanish ?

Much similar as to why the US Govt bailed out the automakers back in the "80's, the downstream infrastructure would collapse, not that they gave a damn about the Big-3, it's much bigger than that.

The lobbyists for the Power Companies are imbedded so deeply the only way to describe them and their relationship with the US Govt is as "Metastasized" They are so deeply ingrained within the body that evicition is a difficult and sometimes impossible task.

Another issue is the Public Service Commission, here' in Ga, the Power Utilities get a 12-1/4% ROE, that is return on equity. Even if they upgrade an office with new carpet, [the old stuff is still great] they earn a 12.25% on the bill, FREE and CLEAR PROFIT.

Southern Company had a small solar plant, ~40mi down I-85 South of Atlanta near Peachtree City Ga, it provided steam for a nearby factory. It worked great, the publications we got showed that it was a financial success.. One day it was GONE, nothing in the company brochures about that !

The only hope for Solar is reasonably priced "thin film" cells or other technology, granted the US Govt will probably have import duties on them so high as to make them delayed as long as possible..

Wind is hopeful to those who don't live near the noisy things, 1mw wind generators are common now.

Tide Generators or River Generators are a viable source of energy, France installed some in the late 70's~ and one complaint was that they "Slowed the rotation of the Earth" !!!!.

It seems as if "Fuel Cell" Technology shall be quietly be hidden from public view as long as possible

Geothermal is fine, as long as the spot you prick for the lava is not a balloon about to burst.

Hydrogen Technology is far down the road

Quote:
It takes more energy to make Hydrogen from water electrolysis than the energy produced, to overcome this hurdle is the "Holy Grail" of Hydrogen Production

http://drivingthefuture.com/fuelcell.htm

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

Lies of omission
Lies of omission's picture
Herbert W wrote: Simple, the

Herbert W wrote:

Simple, the "Good-Ol-Boy" system in place now governing the electrical power companies won't allow it.

If Southern Company, Gulf Power, PG&E etc went solar, how would GE, Westinghouse, and all the other companies get by if not for the massive parts required for Coal Fired Plants would suddenly vanish ?

This is an odd statement considering that both GE and Westinghouse manufacture solar panels.

Cheesebone
Cheesebone's picture
Quote: Tide Generators or

Quote:

Tide Generators or River Generators are a viable source of energy, France installed some in the late 70's~ and one complaint was that they "Slowed the rotation of the Earth" !!!!.

Ha!

bobbler
bobbler's picture
I think the moon is slowing

I think the moon is slowing the earths rotation much more than anything we could ever do..  Silly complaint, LOL..

Cheesebone wrote:

Quote:

Tide Generators or River Generators are a viable source of energy, France installed some in the late 70's~ and one complaint was that they "Slowed the rotation of the Earth" !!!!.

Ha!

Natural Lefty
Natural Lefty's picture
FYI The Obama Administration

FYI The Obama Administration is funding the development of solar energy plants. There is a big solar energy project going on near Blythe, CA at this time. Apparently, this project has been ignored outside of southern California by the media. As it happens, my wife bought some land near Blythe using her family's savings, 20 years ago. Now, we are looking forward in the near future to seeing "our" solar energy plant when driving to Blythe.

However, my semi-impoverished lifestyle shows no signs of changing, at least not yet. My wife has various charitable plans for her money involving her family and charitable organizations, although we may (hopefully) be able to save some of it ourselves for future needs. Not yet, though -- she wouldn't even let me spend $40 for fishing equipment yesterday.

By the way, I thought this thread was about solar energy. What's all this dissing of wind power about?

bobbler
bobbler's picture
I read an article in the

I read an article in the checkout line (cant remember the magazine, but it sounded very scientific).   It was about the safety of nuclear power plants.  (1) there was no mention whatsoever about alternative energy..   (2) they basically wrote the only alternative is to burnn more coal to meet energy needs..   No discussion of reducing consumption, or the many forms of alternative energy..  With the world is dire need of solutions, such blatant lying (intent to mislead the public) should be illegal.. 

frankystine9
frankystine9's picture
SOLAR PANELS   CIRCLING

SOLAR PANELS   CIRCLING  PLANET   IN GEO. SYNC.  ORBIT

polycarp2
We installed solar in our new

We installed solar in our new housing area at the monastery. .It was cheaper than running new  power lines to the area.. .A payoff is no  increase in the electric bill..All older buildings are being converted to solar as well..

The new dwellings are constructed in such a way that heating/cooling aren't required..The indoor temps are in the 70's year-round. Outdoor temps range from  the low teens in the winter  to 110-120 in sunmmer..

If you want to pay through the nose for expensive,,energy  inefficient building materials rather than cheap, energy efficient building materials, you can do that. Our cheap, energy efficient dwellings have a life expectancy of 1500 years.. Yours?

http://calearth.org/

Nuclear, coal, or oil generated electricity not required.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease" 

timtrott
Four energy experts presented

Four energy experts presented their opinions at a recent policy discussion held at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University.

Shrawan Nigam, Senior Consultant at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations The sources that could provide energy security in the future are nuclear, solar, and coal. However, each has its share of problems.

But the long gestation period for commissioning a nuclear power plant, high cost, and uncertainty about uranium availability beyond the 21st century add to the doubts. Solar power is not only expensive, but the materials used, such as glass and silicon, are made with very energy intensive processes. A push for solar power, with the current state of technology and need for subsidy, would imply continued use of coal and oil, leading to increased carbon emissions.

Hydropower is a significant contributor but comes with a special set of issues – inundation of large tracts of land and the consequent problems. Coal has obvious environmental issues, but in spite of the concerns about carbon emissions and global warming, it still seems to be the strongest contender for providing energy security.

The recent mishap at Fukushima has again highlighted the dangers of nuclear power. However, enhanced security features could probably take care of possible risks. Reactors using thorium are still in the experimental stage, but when developed, fuel availability could cease to be an issue.

http://www.ltbridge.com/assets/85.pdf