My colleague Jim Greenberg from Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation published something today that I wanted to pass along. Here’s a pithy excerpt.
The observation that investing in fossil fuels is getting riskier is shared by some major players in the investment and financial industries. (more…)
Here’s an article in Forbes that makes the same point that I do in chapter eight of my new book: Bullish on Renewable Energy, i.e., volatility has a cost.
The cost of energy from fossil fuels depends on the cost of the fuels themselves, which fluctuates according to market pressures, and we’ve seen extreme volatility over the past few decades. By contrast, not only are renewable resources free, but perhaps best of all, that can’t change; there will never be a cost associated with absorbing energy from sunlight or the wind. Not only does this concept of free fuel bring peace of mind, it saves a ton of money associated with hedges, purchasing futures, etc.
I often lament that I’m never financially involved in the multi-billion solar and wind projects. Generally, each one happens with its own inner sanctum of bankers and lawyers. It’s hard not to envy them, though, as I add no value there, I’m never invited to play. (more…)
Let me introduce this new form of transportation.
I can’t claim that it’s sexy–only that it’s unique and that it will be worth the 90 seconds you spent checking it out.
And I thought I had this whole subject really well thought out — until now, that is.
Just when I was betting on mass transit, drone package deliveries and e-bikes. This changes everything.
Just as the tragedy in Paris last Wednesday was the blackest single moment in the history of free speech that the civilized world has ever known, last Thursday saw an immediate change of direction. Chairman of the FCC (U.S. Federal Communications Commission) Tom Wheeler all but announced that he was coming down on the side of Net Neutrality.
This is very good news for almost everyone except for the huge forces in the communications industry, whose profits would have gone through the roof if they were able to provide an “Internet fast lane” for themselves and their subsidiaries, and to sell to certain customers, while those of us who couldn’t afford it would have had users complaining about slower downloads, or, more likely, simply disappearing. (more…)
Although I do try to cut up occasionally in some of these posts, there’s not too much humor in the basic theme: the heartlessness of the oil companies, the realities of climate disruption and so forth. For that reason, I may do well to post something every once in a while that’s just plain fun. I’m sure many of you have experienced this for yourselves–I know I have–they’ve been at it for at least three decades.
Since I’m more involved in free speech than the average man-on-the-street, I should note that I was deeply saddened to wake up this morning to learn that nine people, publishers of a satirical magazine in Paris, had been murdered. It’s a dark day for the civilized world.
When U.S. President Barack Obama leaves office in early 2017, he will have left behind him innumerable elements of progress in the direction of a clean energy future. Obviously, all eyes are on the Keystone Pipeline just now, but that shouldn’t prevent our recognizing how far superior this administration has been vis-à-vis environmental issues than the one preceding it. (more…)
I write a great deal about practical matters: the installed cost/Watt of PV, the list of heavy metals we find in coal, what we may want to do with off-peak wind, and so forth. These are measurable things, and, as such, provide the possibility of right and wrong answers. (more…)
Regarding my post in which I advised the nuclear power industry to “move on from the past,” a reader comments:
Craig, it sounds like, “The truth is the best policy.” I have a response from an engineer friend of mine that suggests that all nuclear based electric has problems. It just seems wiser to capture the free energy of the sun, our nuclear plant at a safe distance. Using that energy will meet all our needs and preserve our ability to live here, scientists tell us.
Unfortunately, this is complicated. In the first place, it depends on what you mean by “scientists.” This discussion is meaningless if it excludes people like economists and international relations experts. “Physically possible” and “practically achievable” are two entirely different things. (more…)
