Canada’s rank among solar powers

Infographic: How this country stacks up to the world leaders in solar power production

by Amanda Shendruk

Germany has set a new record for solar power output—22.68 gigawatts is the new number to beat.

California also set its own solar power production record; but at 1,790 megawatts, it pales in comparison to Germany’s new numbers.

CA Grid reached a new solar generation peak of 1,790 MW @ 13:48 on April 18, 2013… goo.gl/T8cr7

— California ISO (@CalifornialSO) April 19, 2013

It’s fairly well known that Germany is in its own league when it comes to clean energy (in fact, for a brief period last Thursday, solar and wind power output together provided about half of all Germany’s electricity). But how does the rest of the world compare? Check out the infographic below to see where Canada ranks in comparison (and how many trips Germany can now take in the DeLorean time machine!)

NOTE: The graphic is based on data published by Zachary Shahan at cleantechnica.com, so head over to this link if you want to see more states/countries than those included in the infographic.




Browse

Canada’s rank among solar powers

  1. Be careful what you are comparing, the numbers provided are very, very misleading.

    Solar production capacity is what industry is capable of producing, assuming every solar array is in full direct sunlight.

    The yield is what was actually produced and is, unfortunately, sometimes misleadingly stated in GWh or TWh without the all important percentage. For Solar, it is impossible to yield 100% as night makes that impossible, then cloudy days, indirect light, etc.

    To have a good understanding of Germany’s solar production, one should understand the yield percentage which is almost always lower than 10% in Germany. This is due to its northern location, bad weather, and generally overall poor set-up for producing solar power.

    So,in conclusion – do not hold German solar production up as a model to the world. Solar may make sense in equatorial, sunny climates but in northern europe it is simply a waste of resources, as the German gov’t has recently understood and is now beginning to clawback subsidies.

    • Germany has an installed capacity for well over 30 GW of solar power. The 22.68 GW figure is the most it has ever produced at one point in time in this case at noon on April 15 2013. You are correct, however that the circle diagram above is based on installed capacity not actual power generated.

    • Just to clarify: The 22.68 GW is at peak capacity (StewartSmith says it well as the most “produced at one point in time, in this case at noon on April 15, 2013″). The graph, however, is not based on peak capacity but on total installed solar power (in 2011 for the countries, and at the end of Q3 2012 for the states). There are many ways to compare solar output (peak capacity, per capita, per GDP, as a percentage of total electricity production, etc.), but this graphic presents only a comparison of total installed output per person.

      • I took the time to read your graphic amd references and know a little about the industry, so can piece together the facts. However, this graphic clearly implies that Germany is a solar power producing mecca, it is most definitely not.

        A very nice comparison chart (using power actually produced) would show $ per kwh (true costs) and also kwh per capita and compare the same for coal or nuclear.

        These stats already exist and are quite damning for the solar industry. There is little value in showing raw capacity or maximum instantaneous output for solar power or wind power as this simply does not reflect their very, very transient nature.

        I certainly agree with your approach to graphically represent information for easier digestion into the public mind; however, sometimes simplifying things too much can lead to wrong conclusions. The right balance is critical.

        • Thanks for the feedback. There are so many different ways to visualize/present this (and similar) information (as a number of the comments have pointed out). It would make a very interesting (and long!) blog post to show this issue from all angles. However it seems as though there is plenty of interest. Perhaps it would be worth my time …

      • Amanda, you claim above that solar and wind energy produce half of Germany’s energy, with the intimation this happens all the time. This is false and misleading. To be precise, the article you link to states that for 3 hours on one day wind and solar produced half of Germany’s electricity — not all energy as you wrote. Energy data from the EU and even from the clean technica site you reference shows that on average Germany gets about 26% of its electricity — not all energy needs– from wind and solar. The other point that is not explained is how wind and solar have preferential access to the grid, mandated by government. So even if fossil fuel electrical production was more efficient and could fill the grid, it couldn’t because the wind and solar will push it out of the way. It’s like saying someone can run the fastest when in reality their competitors have their legs tied together! In sum, you fail to differentiate between “total energy” and individual energy components, such as electricity, fuel, heating, etc. You need to fix that statement because it is clearly wrong. One other point, in your chart you list countries, except for the US which is separated into states. This also is misleading. Did you do it that way to make Germany the big producer when it is in fact the US, based on the numbers you show? Or are your numbers wrong?

        • Jurg, you’re absolutely right about the article I link to. The sentence was unclear and, yes, misleading. I’ve changed it. As for comparing states and countries: The comparison is per capita, so the United States doesn’t crack the top fifteen on its own, but interestingly, various states themselves rank quite high. I’d be interested to know, actually, how the provinces rank on their own. Does anyone know about the solar production of individual provinces?

  2. The fact remains that photo voltaic and wind power can not exist in the electricity market without massive government subsidy.

    • Like the billions of government dollars allocated for coal and oil extraction subsidies/incentives BillyBobby? Shilling for the carbon culture again? Exxon Mobil? Shell? Suncor? Chinoc? Gasprov? OPEC? The money must be just pouring into your bank account BB.

      • Don’t get out much do you metropika?
        Do you know what it costs (the actual cost) per watt for Solar, for wind, for oil, coal, natural gas,etc.

        Please enlighten, provide a list and let me choose which I want. Hint: I’ll choose the cheapest. 2nd Hint, the cheapest (by far) is not wind or solar.

        • What. Llike the figures/factors which you always neglect to include in your equation Frenchie? Coal. OIl. Natural gas extraction. TRILLIONS of dollars have to be invested. Who gets rich from it all? Not you or me. Environemtal degredation? Site contamination remediation? The enormous cost to the health care system from industry related illnesses? Nuclear waste disposal? I’ll go all out for nuclear power, which so many of you think is cheap in comparison to solar power, if you agree to take just one barrel of spent fissionable fuel and keep it in your basement for a year. What? Not interested? Didn’t think so.

          • Making some ridiculous point about storing waste in my basement is about as intelligent as me telling you to build your house on a wind turbine and have the blades pass through your kitchen.

            So you want solar, well go ahead and be the sucker that pays for it, you’ll certainly make someone else rich. Just keep your thieving hands out of my pockets and I think we’ll get along just fine.

          • Any money that you might have Frenchie you stole from Canadian taxpayers. We’ve been subsidizing you bunch of self entitled seperatist whiners for too long now. Go out and get a job and earn an honest living like the rest of us.

          • We the citizen have gotten rich from oil and gas. As have the millions of highly paid fossil fuel workers. As have governments from enormous tax revenues (in comparison to tiny subsidies handed out).

            And best of all? ONLY oil and gas and coal have provided the abundant, and affordable 7/24/365 energy we need to live our modern productive lives.

      • Oil companies get mere pennies in subsidies. The payroll they pay and taxes they pay are enormous.

        • Canada defends billions in taxpayer funded subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Pembina Institute June, 14, 2006 Amy Taylor

          • Pembina Institute uses loop hole ;

            As a non-profit energy think tank, the
            Pembina Institute employs a number of different methods to advance
            sustainable energy solutions, such as encouraging Canadians to call on
            our politicians to amend, retain, change or develop policies and laws
            which influence the way we produce and consume energy. Due to the Canada
            Revenue Agency’s constraints on the types of activities that charitable
            organizations can engage in, the Pembina Institute has opted not to
            apply for charitable status. We hope that you will support our decision
            to use a wide array of methods and approaches to advancing sustainable
            energy solutions by donating to the Pembina Institute.

            

If you
            wish to receive an official income tax receipt and support innovative
            environmental research on energy issues, consider directing your
            donation to the Pembina Foundation for Environmental Research and Education,
            a registered Canadian charity that frequently contracts the Pembina
            Institute and other organizations to deliver on its environmental
            research and education mandate.

          • Got another environmental burr under your saddle BobbyBilly?

          • Tax breaks to oil companies are given for exploration and new well expenses, they’re designed to increase production, jobs, and… taxes collected. Whether or not they’re a good policy it would actually be more accurate to call them the opposite of a subsidy than a subsidy.

          • Pembina Institute? LOL! As credible as the Council of Canadians!

  3. BERLIN –

    German Economy Minister Philipp Roesler stepped up demands for extra
    cuts to subsidies for wind and solar power providers, aggravating a
    clash with his Environment Ministry Cabinet colleague over the nation’s
    energy overhaul.

    Roesler, who leads Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Free Democratic
    junior coalition partner, wants to go beyond Environment Minister Peter
    Altmaier’s proposals to reform clean-energy support laws, a paper
    obtained by Bloomberg News shows. The document said that
    renewable-energy providers should carry more market risk and so curb the
    cost to the state of Germany’s transition from atomic power. It didn’t
    give specific numbers for subsidy cuts.

  4. Japan, which is scaling back it’s nuclear power generators in the wake of the 2012 Fukushima reactor incident, will be steadily expanding its solar power generation in 2013. Their solar power program, which was begun in 1990, is currently ranked among the top 5 countires in the world for most installed PV, and has the third largest solar capacity in the world, behind Germany and Spain, with 7,000 MW that generate 77% of its electrical needs. Yes the industry is subsidized. But so many of any countries industries are subsidized to a greater or lesser extent than you realize.

    • Japan has around 250 Gwatts of production capacity. 7,000 MW = 7 GW by the way, so that means they’ve got a long expensive road ahead of them if they want to convert a signigicant portion to solar. Asssuming they had they much money to waste, where would they get the land? It certainly isn’t the 77% that you claim.

      Considering that solar yields about 10-15% in Japan’s geographic condition (that is a very optimistic assumption) then you would need multiple factors of excess production to cover where the sun don’t shine, and what do you do at night? Just tell everyone to shut the lights off – brilliant!

      Another well thought out solution by someone who doesn’t understnad the problem, how the technology works, thinks everyone else is in the pay of big oil and generally doesn’t have a clue.

      • 250 Gwatts? What on earth are you smoking? Been standing to close to the exhaust pipe again Frenchie? LOL

        • Hmmm, why don’t you read this :http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=550

          or just try google.
          Sooo, just how did you think a population of 130,000,000 in a highly developed country with large manufacturing base power everything — fairy dust perhaps?

          • Been there done that before you were even aware of what solar power was all about. Served on the executive of the Northern Alberta Solar Powered Society for two years. Wrote some articles for the quarterly newsletter. Manned the booth they set up at Earth Days. Attended, and spoke at many symposiums on the subejct. Your full of it Frenchie. I’ve seen your type at the public seminars on environmental responsibility. Trying to discredit the movement for more sustainable development. Driving great big honking pieces of Detroit steel. Deniers. Trogs and Trolls. Still living in the dark ages.

          • 2% of Japan’s energy comes from solar. On a good day.

            The modern ages (2013) are powered predominantly by oil and gas and this will remain true for the rest of this century.

          • Canada’s power generation.
            59% hydro electric
            19% coal
            15% nuclear
            5% gas
            1% oil
            1% wind
            The old coal fired generating plants are being phased out. No new nuclear plants are being considered due to astronomically high start up costs and long construction times. I predict that together with solar panels fuel cells will be implemented to power Canadian homes in the future. They can either be grid free or grid connected depending on provincial regulations.

          • I’m talking total energy, not just electricity.

            Greenies have been ‘predicting’ the imminent arrival of solar powered Cdn homes for decades now. But solar remains unreliable and fuel cells remain obscenely expensive. So dream on Gaia Boy.

          • I think that you’ve been sniffing gas again Paulywog.

          • Do your lights work at 2am with solar? No one makes batteries big enough for cities.

          • .77% Caught Frenchie in the old bait and switch routine. At least you’re looking up the stats which will only grow over time. The suns energy is free for anyone to harness. It can provide more potential energy in one hour than all the other standard energy sources combined. It’s not going to burn through it’s fusion reactor/resources for another 100 million years or so. Those are truly awesome numbers.

          • So you switched 77% with .77% and somehow this is clever debating?

            Solar energy is not free, do ‘solar fairies’ build the cells, build the power control units, the transmission lines, etc, etc and then deliver and install it all. It takes energy and money to do all this. Or does money also grow on these fairy trees of yours, let me guess – you think printing more money to build solar is a good idea!

            It takes a certain kind of green brain to think that rich capitalists have a hell-bent desire to kill the planet with oil and gas all the whilst somehow ignoring solar as a much cheaper way to produce electricity (cheaper in your view, but every person in the industry knows costs multiple factors more).

            Its clear that you are simply pushing an agenda for a technology which you don’t comprehend, regardless of the papers you say you wrote. Also, quoting pembina does not give you more credibility, pembina is well-known for their ability to spin fact into fiction even better tha Stan Lee.

            BTW – you do realize the sun is expected to continue shining for around 5 billion more years, or is that another clever bait and switch technique?

          • Duh. Which way did they go George?
            The statement read; The suns energy is free for anyone to harness. Even a dimwit like you can understand that right?
            The amount of potential energy from the sun, that falls on the earth’s surface every hour, is equivalent to all the other energy sources combined. Now what’s so hard about that to understand?
            5 billion years.Yes.You see you’re beginning to see the light already.. LOL
            Pembina spinning the facts? Like you do Frenchie? Shilling for the oil companies? Like they’re just the most ethical corporate sweethearts on the planet. Exxon Valdez. BP Gulf Oil spill. Ever take a good look at all the tailing ponds from the Alberta Tar Sands projects? I think that you’ve been standing just a little too close to the exhaust pipe for just a little too long FR. Time to step back and take a deep breath

  5. “Three years after the BP oil spill.” tar balls and oil sheen still blight the coast. By Julie Dermansky: The Atlantic.
    Are fossil fuels going extinct?

    • Fossil fuels remain the miracle fuel of the 21st century.

  6. Wait, so the entire country of Canada is being compared to states like Arizona? Isn’t most energy strategy in Canada delegated provincially?

    • In the land of the midnight sun the petro dollar is king.

  7. Why should we care about solar when we have easy access to hydro power and massive petroleum reserves.

    • Couldn’t help but agree. Maybe they just want to share some information that will help other readers who are looking for this topic. Maybe next time they will discuss about hydro power and petroleum.

      __________________________________
      physical therapy EMR

  8. Unfortunately the surges in generation from solar and wind are a problem for infrastructure as well as base load coal/gas plants that get more wear and tear from shutting down and restarting in response to it. We should be researching ways to store and improve alternative energy, instead we’re forcing undeveloped technology on communities who don’t want them.

  9. What is being forgotten in this debate is the relative infancy of the solar industry. I began installing residential solar in 2009 and have seen the output of a standard 60 cell panel (appox. 1640mm x 990mm) go from 220W to 260W and from 13% efficiency to 17% in less than 4 years! Also, the retail cost of installing a 10kW residential system (batteries for nighttime and everything) has gone from around $100,000CAD to about $40,000CAD. Where will it be in 10 years? Bat-computer, anyone?

    Did oil achieve this kind of growth when it started? Seems to me we’ve known about the Alberta oil sands since the 1970′s and it’s only recently that its production has become financially viable because the cost to consumers has risen.

    The only way to encourage growth is through government subsidies. This is Germany’s great virtue: its foresight.

    With the exception of hydro electric, solar and wind are the only energy sources without the potential for major catastrophe. BP, Chernobyl, any coal mine disaster, etc. And only certain places have access to hydro electric.

    This is why solar and wind are worth investing in, no matter the initial cost.

    • Do you know what materials are required to produce solar panels and wind turbines? What are the environmental consequences of their extraction and the potential for disaster? Actually, oil production technology made leaps and bounds in the 20th century that far surpassed the 4% in 4 years you mention above. Rig improvements, offshore technology, horizontal drilling, secondary and tertiary recovery through steam injection at wells, etc made oil production more efficient and was done with little to no government subsidies. Furthermore, the first commercial production of the oil sands took place in 1967, governments got involved in the 1970s when oil prices skyrocketed. Germany’s “foresight” is to have consumer electrical and other energy costs increase significantly every year, drive up the cost of agricultural land to fill it with solar arrays, that in turn increase the cost of livestock feed and grains which in turn increases the cost of food. I know this because I live in the German countryside.

      • Jurg,
        Yes you’re right. Your costs keep going up. But just wait until you can’t drink the water from the well on your farm because it literally lights on fire when you put a match to it when it comes out of the tap. Ever seen that Jurg? The pesticides and antibiotics you use to control disease and weeds have been killing honey bees that pollinate crops, flowers and fruit trees, poison the the aquifers, alter the food chain and spoil the soil you walk on. Have you ever seen the environmental damage caused by commercial pig farms? Feed lots? The effects of chicken or turkey farms on animals? I worked on a number of farms here in Canada Jurg. I know what goes on. I worked for an old tobacco farmer by the name of Mr. Gubbels. He told me stories about the Nazis during WW2.

      • Um that’s what I’m saying. Give solar as much time as oil has had and there won’t be any need for ground mounted systems. All the solar needed will be on rooftops– otherwise unused space. Actually, we can already do that. If every home in Ontario was feeding the grid, there’d be no need for any other source of residential power supply. Imagine all the non-residential we could power if the efficiency increased.

        But this is where foresight comes in. I suppose if 110 years ago two brothers from Ohio came to you for money for their flying machine you would have turned them down.

        • The two brothers from Ohio didn’t need billions upon billions upon billions of dollars of government subsidies to get their invention ‘off the ground’.

          • Like the oil and gas industries have gotten Paulywog?

          • For every billion in tax breaks accorded the oil industry, $20 billion in payroll, tax and royalty revenue comes into all levels of government.

            For every billion in subsidies to wind and solar firms given, taxpayers get stuck with higher energy costs forever and zero royalties accrue to governments.

      • Lebst du im “German coutryside”? Warum ist deinem Kopf in ihres Arschloch?

    • Without subsidies, what would the price be? Subsidies have a bad habit of keeping prices higher, many solar installers are well aware of the level of subsidies available and adjust their prices accordingly. Instead of allowing prices to fall due to competition, subsidies artificially keep the price higher than they would actually be.

      Government R&D into new technologies, I am OK with. Long-standing government subsidies into industry I am not definitely not supportive of.

      Germany’s foresight apparently did not extend far enough to see the significant price increase it would have nor the high cost to the taxpayer. The gov’t is currently in the process of clawback now, they simply can’t afford it anymore.

      As for technical limits, well you can look to the space industry for an example of what the long term efficiency increases will be. Space qualified solar cells approach 30% for a commerical satellite, at over 1000$/watt. It has taken many years (decades) to get from 12, to 20, 27, and now 30 % for space application – with a lot of serious money into R&D.

      Back on earth, a jump from 13 to 17% cell efficiency sounds good, but look at the longer picture and you realise that this just won’t continue, there are clear technical and cost limts. Once you take into account only direct sunlight allows you to even approach this 17% limit you would quickly realise it is something really only suited for dry, equatorial regions. Sorry, but Canada and Germany just aren’t the place for solar arrays.

      Much better investment to improve our existing infrastructure, it would cost less and be more effective.

      • Those are the costs without subsidies. Currently the province of Ontario offers a Feed-In-Tarrif, ie. they pay you for the electricity you generate and feed back into the grid. Hydro bills are paid like normal and there are two meters (generation and consumption) on the side of the house. There is absolutely no help in the form of subsidies for the initial start-up. It follows the German model. The program also requires a domestic (provincial) content (was 40%, is now 60% and as the price drops and technology increases, so will the content requirement) so the manufacturing and installation must be done locally, creating jobs. Subsidies are not provided to the manufacturing side either as the program creates a line up of people looking to by the local product.

        Canada and Germany are the places for solar. Anywhere it is too hot, the panels lose efficiency. The best solar production times here are late spring and early fall and most unshaded homes (anywhere in suburbia) can generate far more energy than they consume.

        Does Germany really look like a country that has made poor financial investments over the last 40 years?? Last I checked, their foresight seems to have paid off.

        And infrastructure replacement??? Did you know it costs $25,000/km to run a hydro line? We install solar arrays to remote cottages and homes because it is far cheaper to have solar than to run a hydro line in from the road.

        • Solar man,
          Please don’t show up Frenchie for the spin doctor that he really is. He seems to think that title should be reserved soley for the Pembina Institute because they don’t line up in the proper direction. The direction he wants everyone to go in. Something about him just doesn’t sound right. Who’s he really working for? What’s his hidden agenda?
          I like the idea of using fuel cells in conjunction with solar arrays

        • Solar has been a wasteful investment in Germany. Billions of Euros that could have gone into citizens’ pockets has instead been wasted on creating more expensive energy. German’s have made a big error on solar.

          • You imbicile, you are talking out of your ass. A wasteful investment? I live in Berlin and green energy is thriving here — especially in what was once the sterile East Germany. Right, billions of Euros have been taken out of our pockets — is that an exact figure? While North America is turning into a smoldering, brown air, car infested wasteland, Germany is among the greenest countries in Europe — and we are slowly banning cars from our cities. Stick with coal and gasoline and your joke of a public transportation system– the pollution obviously hasn’t burned out any of your brain cells.

          • Berlin is thriving not because of green energy but in spite of it. Green energy remains a wasteful use of resources.

            Go ahead and ban your cars, we love cars and aren’t anal about them like you are. And we don’t like public transportation because we are richer then Berliners and can afford the freedom of personal transportation.

            Dumkuff.

          • Ah yes, the “freedom” to make the rest of the world pay the costs of your decisions.

          • LOL. Wasting money on duplicate energy sources means less money available for foreign aid.

          • You dont use public transportation because you are all fat asses and can’t walk three blocks for anything. And you have to live and breath all that carbon monoxide.

            Dumkuff: Is this supposed to be your attempt at calling me Dummkopf? It’s not even close.

          • German solar is bad for the environment since duplicate power sources like nuclear or coal have to be kept operating for when the sun goes down, as it inevitably does.

            For folks who can’t compete in the private sector and survive off the government teat, milking German taxpayers is a godsend.

            You can spend your life in your concrete metropolis of Berlin. Me? I enjoy the freedom, privacy and luxury my vehicle provides.

  10. It’s a huge waste of time, money, and other resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

    The globe stopped warming over a decade ago, as can be confirmed from any of the major datasets, for example from the NOAA:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

    Meanwhile CO2 concentrations continue to rise unabated:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

    Whatever else we can determine from this, it is sure and certain that CO2 is not the Great Climate Boogeyman it has been made out to be.

    • Still flogging that environemntal dead horse to death called CO2? Just in case you didn’t notice GM wer’e discussing, in a somewhat round about fashion, the pros’ and cons of solar powered generation. Some can’t seem to find anything good to say on its behalf, while others are gushing with praise. The information that’s being debated has been interesting.

      • The only reason solar power is bothered with at all is due to the artificial panic about burning carbon.

        Solar requires staggeringly high subsidies to make it even marginally viable.

  11. I’m in the midst of checking out a micrFIT HydroONE program but the red tape is unbelievable.

  12. Huge problems Canada has in solar energy and better ways do exist.

    1) When you need energy the most, our climate is cold and days too short to generate solar on a reliable basis. Best places for solar is where sunshine days are consistent all year around and tend to be tropical and certainly closer to the equator. Sorry, not going to get much solar power on Jan 22nd in Yukon.

    2) Cost. Anything in Canada we do, will simply cost too much until some breakthroughs make it less costly and more efficient.

    3) Distance. The further away you are from where the power is needed, the less effective you get. Sure, put solar panels in MB, but getting the power to Toronto is a limiting issue.

    4) Solar panel land steals from agriculture. Ready for food price hikes? Sorry, corn, potatoes, barley, wheat, et all do not grow well underneath solar panels. Has the same problem as ethanol from corn, you can send the land for food or energy but as energy you have less food.

    5) Storage. It is political BS that solar or ethanol can come close to supply our energy needs. It is irrational to think solar is the answer as at 12am and no mass storage for the energy the whole concept is ludicrous when it comes to scaling up. Works great for 20 LED traffic signs, but not for cities.

    Politicians are however ignoring a real rational and economical way to solve energy issues that is far more plausible and you get to eat food too. They might even be ignoring it for nefarious political reasons. The name to research is the “Thorium Cycle”. Much safer to use than Uranium-Plutonium cycle, and feed stock for thorium is much more abundant on earth than uranium. In fact, the thorium cycle can be used to recycle plutonium from bombs to power for cities and burn the waste of uranium to a less toxic state.

    But in the 1930-50s they chose uranium as weapons development drove the research and not power generation. But our politicians are ignorant and short sighted and on the wrong track.

  13. Forget solar. In any form from ethanol to solar panels it can never supply enery we need. It is a minor supplemental source at best.

    If we were not a war society, instead of $1.3 billion for US bombs for Canada to drop on Libya, we could have started a Thorium Cycle research for cheap, more safe than uranium power generation without the solar problems and less problems from uranium weapons oriented technology.

    As solar issues of power in dark periods, overcast, rainy days is a serious issue that has no working solutions. Even the thery well is short on pickings for this. Solar can never be more than supplemental and robs land from food production, which is another huge problem with solar.
    Time to stop military weapons development in over looking the obvious future of power generation that is known, practical and can be accomplished today. It isn’t FUD, it isn’t theory, it isn’t political BS and feel good, it is practical and cost effective.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

    But hey, we love war. In the above link pay attention to why Thorium takes back seat, “lacks significant weaponization potential”. As for processing, we haven’t given it any research yet but do know it can be processed. Australia even has mining tailings, piles of it as they don’t know what to do with it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *