Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Power Science

The Coming Energy Turnaround In Germany 394

Posted by Soulskill
from the bratwurst-is-a-renewable-energy-source dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Germany has decided to close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022 and embark on an energy turnaround that focuses on large increases in sustainable energy production. What will it take in terms of investments, and will it mean cost hikes for German consumers? Will it really mean more jobs in the 'green energy' sector? Quoting: 'Total investment over the next decade for such an energy turnaround is estimated to be roughly €200 billion (or almost $290 billion). ... At the moment, more than 20 new coal-fired power plants are being planned or already under construction; together, they would achieve a total output of 10 gigawatts and could, in terms of power supply, replace nuclear power plants that are still operational. But coal-fired power plants do not fit into the concept of the sustainable energy turnaround that the government has put forward.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Coming Energy Turnaround In Germany

Comments Filter:
  • Be patient (Score:4, Funny)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:32PM (#37357920)

    coal-fired power plants do not fit into the concept of the sustainable energy

    You're just not thinking long-term.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You're just not thinking long-term.

      I think the German government has the same problem, like that time where they decided they should shut down all their nuclear power plants.

      • Re:Be patient (Score:4, Informative)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Saturday September 10, 2011 @03:09AM (#37360784)

        So wait; we have a choice between a set of power sources which provide indefinite quantities of energy; where the installation, once done, is pretty much forever and just needs small scale maintenance; where the major influence on the environment is extremely localised and quite easy to understand and reduce and another power source which provides energy now but where later we have to look after nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. Where the major cost is decommissioning and clean up which happens at the end and where almost all cost estimates basically assume the tax payer covers that for free.

        Let's be absolutely clear where we are in clean energy at the present moment. The cost of wind power ($97 / levelised MWh)* , which has been a practical power source only in the last decade or two, is already lower than the cost of nuclear energy ($113.9 / levelised MWh)*. Whilst nuclear is a mature generation technology which has been optimised since the 1960s, wind development is barely started. Further, since wind is simply available for free in many locations there is no clear absolute natural reason why there should be any particular cost level. The questions are simply technological development.

        What's important to realise is that China has now realised this and is doing the sensible thing; investing strongly at this point in the development of green energy sources. At the same time, by increasing rare earth costs, they are attempting to reduce other people's lead in green energy by putting those companies out of business. This becomes essentially an economic war to see who can be the first to get green energy costs so far below conventional energy prices that the other sources become useless. My guess would be that this will come about in about the next five years.

        We've also all heard that the argument that wind energy is intermittent; that it doesn't produce sufficient power when needed. That is, in part true, but what's not understood is that it's an opportunity. The price given above (levelised MWh) already includes this; more wind turbines are installed than required and this is done in many different locations then at the moment of need enough power is available with the same or better availability characteristics as a conventional plant (N.B. the whole point of a large scale power grid is the fact that power sources can and do go offline unexpectedly). However, once we have done this install, what are we left with? Extremely cheap power supply in local areas at certain times. Very simple and somewhat inefficient power storage schemes, such as converting electricity to hydrogen, storing it suddenly become entirely sensible. If you do this next to the wind generators then at times of high wind you can make hydrogen; at times of low wind and high power demand you can burn the hydrogen for profit. This is the kind of scheme Slashdot readers should be thinking about.

        By getting into the green energy game strongly, Germany becomes the logical place to develop these technologies. Long term, say over the next 100 years, this is really clever. The accusation that the Germans aren't thinking long term is clearly wrong.

        * these numbers come from a DOE study which you can find broken down on Wikipedia's Cost of electricity by source [wikipedia.org] page. Note that these figures are somewhat biased against wind since they include very high transmission costs. This is only true because new wind tends to be differently located from existing nuclear and conventional plants. Conventional plants claim cheap costs simply by pretending to be reusing the existing connections. In fact, if capacity is to be expanded then new connections have to be built somewhere. You will notice that sometimes nuclear is presented as cheaper than wind by

    • by Chas (5144)

      Sure! Let's bury a few billion tons of plant and animal matter today. Put it under high pressure. We'll call for it in a couple million years.

      Or not..

      • Re:Be patient (Score:4, Interesting)

        by hot soldering iron (800102) on Friday September 09, 2011 @08:07PM (#37359090)

        Close, but you're thinking like someone untrained in technology. You did get the "Put it under high pressure" part right, though. You put it in a pressure cooker, and after initial startup, the generated methane and other hydrocarbons will power the process. The current iteration of this technology is called "Thermal De-polymerization", and can convert raw bio-waste into number 2 diesel fuel in about 24 hours. There was a pilot plant set up outside Jefferson City, Missouri, to process waste from a turkey processing plant. It was shut down due to "the smell that came from it". Have you ever been around a poultry processing plant? I would have shut the poultry plant down first, if that was a legit reason.

        Another technology, called "producer gas" during WWII, will take just about any bio-waste, and by controlled combustion, create carbon monoxide, a fuel that burns at over a thousand degrees Fahrenheit. The modern version of this is currently being explored by "fringe science enthusiasts" as "Bingo fuel". They use a carbon arc for rapid breakdown of water and bio-matter into hydrocarbon fuel. Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen. That was the "secret" of the urban legend of the Water Engine. Put in water, and the destruction of the carbon electrodes by the arc created gaseous fuel.

        These technologies exist, in economically viable forms, right now. Unfortunately, vested interests (energy and petroleum) could afford to "influence" politicians to shut down this dangerous competition with pocket change from their couch cushions. If Germany gets hold of this, and develops it into "plug and play bio-reactor refineries" to use instead of waste treatment plants, or land-fills, they'll become major energy technology players.

    • Re:Be patient (Score:4, Insightful)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday September 09, 2011 @06:00PM (#37358156)
      "Long term" in politics means "after my next term." To a politician, 2022 seems like a million bajillion years. They are in fact thinking "long term." Specifically they're thinking long term in the way they always think: it will be someone else's problem by then.
    • by Kvasio (127200)

      Oh, common, ex-chancellor Schroeder thought about his financial future for several years and secured his financial future with Gasprom.

    • I hope your tag line is a joke.
  • Backup and fill-in (Score:2, Insightful)

    by msobkow (48369)

    Most of the green energy sources are not viable by themselves. They're too unstable. Wind gusts cause surges for wind power. Solar doesn't produce anything at night. The only one that sounds like it might be viable is wave energy, and that only on shorelines that are never flat.

    So to fill in, you need nuclear, coal, or gas plants.

    • by NFN_NLN (633283) on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:45PM (#37358024)

      Solar doesn't produce anything at night.

      Don't limit yourself to solar panels. They have solar collectors that concentrate energy onto molten salt that never cools. Energy is added during the day but small amounts of heat are used to power turbines throughout the day/night.

      http://inhabitat.com/worlds-first-molten-salt-solar-plant-produces-power-at-night/ [inhabitat.com]

      • They do cool down over time especially if you are pulling heat off them.

        There are other options for power as well such as Tidal, Ocean Currents,
        the Jet Stream, and Geothermal seems to be working pretty well in Iceland.

        The "Geysers" geothermal station have been running in California for many years as work well.

        The Antarctic Circumpolar current alone has 100+ "TIMES" all the flow of all
        the rivers on earth combined.

        It alone could power the southern hemisphere.

        The Aquanator was how it could be done fairly eas

        • by rubycodez (864176)
          The power output of any of those are too puny for a first world nation. Gnat farts compared to 2.5 GW of a modern nuclear plant. Even impressive maximum solar plant output have to be cut 75% or 80% to get total for 24 hours to compare to the steady output of a nuke plant.
        • by inviolet (797804) <slashdot AT ideasmatter DOT org> on Friday September 09, 2011 @09:29PM (#37359570) Journal

          [Environmentalism is a scam that led to] this small scale rollout and blocking wind farms like T. Boone Pickens.

          There is a LOT more to the Pickens story than environmentalist meddling, tax breaks, and ROI. The whole project was a smokescreen, behind which Pickens was attempting to build a water supply business. Do a bit of googling, you'll be amazed at the guy's chutzpah.

      • by Gordonjcp (186804)

        That one in the article *is* in Sicily, though, which is roughly as far south as San Francisco.

        I can't see it doing too well in northerly climes.

      • by Pooua (265915)

        Oh, and 60 million euros for 5 MW comes out $12/watt. Contrast this with a nuclear power plant at about $2/watt. Then, there is the land use. Anything using 3 square miles is *huge*! And, for 5 MW?!?! You would have to be nuts to use this in place of conventional power sources.

    • Most of the green energy sources are not viable by themselves. They're too unstable. Wind gusts cause surges for wind power. Solar doesn't produce anything at night...

      Which is of course, why we have capacitors.

    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:57PM (#37358138)

      Wind gusts do not cause power surges. Modern Turbines and windmills (the ones with the hundred foot long wings) spin at very low RPM. In high winds brakes are applied to keep the speed down because rapid rotation would destroy the windmill.

      I just don't understand why people like you bring up a couple weaknesses of renewable energy then walk away like the only answer is non renewable fossil fuels. The real answer is sustainable energy production that uses multiple renewable sources. Base load from geothermal and nuclear, then you handle summer peak air conditioning load with PV and solar thermal, add in some wind for ~10% of base load, maybe some wave power for a few more percent. Some renewable gas generation from waste digestion (sewage or other organic waste), throw in Hydro where it's available and you have a system that's no entirely dependent on a single source of fuel. Not only that but you don't export several hundred billion dollars a year to hostile countries buying dino by-product to burn.

      Energy generation is a national defense issue. Burning coal has made fish uneatable due to mercury content. Fossil fuels will run out someday and it is in the national interest to move away from non-renewable sources of energy because in the long run they will run out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ubergeek65536 (862868)

        All you say is very interesting but how does it get me re-elected?

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        >>Burning coal has made fish uneatable due to mercury content.

        Isn't it great then, that Germany is eliminating green nuclear power plants and replacing them with coal?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tmosley (996283)
          Those fish aren't actually inedible. The mercury in 99% of saltwater fish is in the form of a non-toxic insoluble salt (it combines with selenium). This is why fish-eating nations like Japan aren't all dead of Mercury poisoning, and don't even exhibit the symptoms of low level chronic poisoning. Mercury on the land is much, MUCH more toxic and dangerous.
      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        I just don't understand why people like you bring up a couple weaknesses of renewable energy then walk away like the only answer is non renewable fossil fuels.

        I can't speak for the other naysayers, and instead of fossil fuels I believe nuclear is the way to go for base loads despite the idiots in Germany. However, when someone brings up a "weakness" of a particular renewable energy, while you use the word "weakness" to make it seem like a small problem, it may actually be a deal-killer. I'm not totally fa

        • "If someone brought up solar power in Finland, they'd rightly be called an idiot, because solar power simply wouldn't work there very well. It's too far north, and there isn't much sunlight." Gosh, if only Finland had access to the ocean... or if they had some kind of wind! But no... Oh well, they can't use solar -- I guess they'll have to burn a dead thing for energy or use Rube-Goldberg nuclear. That's their only choice.

          While the politicians are proposing the new nuclear plants, maybe the politician

      • The real answer is sustainable energy production that uses multiple renewable sources. Base load from geothermal and nuclear, then you handle summer peak air conditioning load with PV and solar thermal, add in some wind for ~10% of base load, maybe some wave power for a few more percent. Some renewable gas generation from waste digestion (sewage or other organic waste), throw in Hydro where it's available and you have a system that's no entirely dependent on a single source of fuel.

        ++this;

        I am quite surprised that many people - whether nuclear proponents or greenies - focus so much on a single pet tech that they have, and believe it to be the answer to all problems. Personally, I still haven't heard a good argument against using renewables where they are readily available, and even using them exclusively or predominantly where the opportunity arises (and, indeed, we have ample experience doing just that - look at US/Canadian Pacific Northwest, for example). Every pound of coal and gra

    • Wind gusts cause surges for wind power.

      This isn't a problem in modern turbines.

    • by Nemyst (1383049)

      What about hydro? Yes, hydroelectric dams.

      Oh wait, hydro isn't trendy these days.

    • Most of the green energy sources are not viable by themselves. They're too unstable. Wind gusts cause surges for wind power. Solar doesn't produce anything at night. The only one that sounds like it might be viable is wave energy, and that only on shorelines that are never flat.

      So to fill in, you need nuclear, coal, or gas plants.

      So which part of "hydro-electric" are you not thinking about. But you're right... we do need some "legacy" power generation to act as a battery. But if we can spread the wind and solar around enough we shouldn't need much more *new* legacy power sources. Just imagine what 15kw of solar power on every roof of every family home in the USA would produce. Most of it without also upgrading the grid. Add some actual batteries at those homes so they can be self-sustaining most of the night time hours and you can h

  • by geekoid (135745)

    slap those people down, Instead of stopping Nuclear power, why don't they use their brains and move to the next generation of nuclear power?
    No, lets let FUD be the way we do things.

    Idiots.

    • Re:Gah (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zzen (190880) on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:52PM (#37358094)

      I agree. This story is such an excellent example of why environmentalism can be so dangerous and *must* be subjected to intense criticism, not adopted automatically "because that's what we should all do, right?".

      It plays on people's fears, causes them to act irrationally and in the end can achieve environmentally negative results - as in the case of Germany introducing 20 new coal power-plants - the same that we've been so fighting so many years to get rid off, since they pollute the air and deplete non-renewable resources. (Yeah, my country neighbors with Germany, so I actually care about the resulting pollution.)

      Yay! Progress... :(

      • I agree. This story is such an excellent example of why environmentalism can be so dangerous and *must* be subjected to intense criticism, not adopted automatically "because that's what we should all do, right?".

        Such is the case with just about every group and their beliefs.

      • by Nimey (114278)

        This isn't a result of environmentalism. It's a result of idiots being scared by the Japanese earthquake.

      • It's sad to see some folks rather have the certainty of global environmental damage due to using fossil fuels instead of the possibility of localised environmental damage due to accidents with nucleair reactors.
    • Tagged article Idiocracy, that's most of what I have to say on the matter.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      France isn't stopping nuclear power, and can sell plenty of same to Germany.

    • by gorgonite (79857)
      That's a really dumb remark. Germany has shut down the oldest, most Fukushima-like reactors. They cannot be magically remodelled into fancy new reactors.
      From there, there are options:
      • build reactors according to present designs, unsafe, expensive, prabably you would call that dumb, too
      • wait for the next nuclear generation. That's not even dumb if you need power now
      • build fossil power stations. If they use natural gas, that can be sensible
      • develop renewables

      From a german point of view the last option i

  • There's no "sustainable" energy supply large enough to replace them without massive subsidies. Here in the UK we can expect 30% rises in bills over the next few years directly attributable to Green policy AND STILL we will need to build peak capacity using traditional sources. Moreover, this extra capacity cannot just be switched on or off. It needs to be running more or less constantly. In other words, the "sustainable energy" initiatives we are implementing are an extremely costly folly. To replace o
    • The thing is, we're at peak oil now, and we're going to be peak coal in only about 20 years, so the cost is going up anyway, we either build out now, or later; and you may have noticed we've been held hostage by gas suppliers for example.

      Your figure for how many wind turbines is also completely deceptive. The point of wind turbines is that they can be sited on farm land, and don't take up any significant land area; you can farm underneath without problems. The wind we have in the UK is actually enough to po

      • The wind we have in the UK is actually enough to power the whole of Europe.

        I didn't realize Tony Blair was still in power.

  • by sjbe (173966) on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:49PM (#37358068)

    Unless/until we can develop some form of industrial scale fusion, any of the base load options (nuclear, gas, coal, oil) are going to be necessary and will come with a serious environmental price tag attached. Solar and wind need to be developed and widely used but absent some miracles in battery technology and/or transmission losses (high temp superconductors) they will have limits.

    If Germany wants to use fossil fuels instead of nuclear that is their prerogative but they are simply trading one problem for another one, possibly worse than the original. I don't really understand what they think they will accomplish other than to mollify people who are (reasonably or unreasonably) terrified of nuclear fission.

    • by Xtifr (1323)

      I don't really understand what they think they will accomplish other than to mollify people who are (reasonably or unreasonably) terrified of nuclear fission.

      I think that's exactly what they think they'll accomplish. Nuclear power simply has bad PR.

      Me, I've been hoping for more work on solar power satellites ever since I read Gerard O'Neill's [wikipedia.org] book a couple of decades ago. (Note that part of what killed government interest in O'Neill's plans back in the '80s was the declining cost of energy!) But I agree that no one solution looks likely to meet our needs.

      • by symbolset (646467) *
        Nuclear does not just have bad PR. It also has no plan to dispose of the radioactive waste created - not just the fuel, all reactors create many tons of radioactive steel or concrete also. Or if there is such a plan, I don't know it. Please feel free to post it in reply.
        • by Nemyst (1383049)

          Nuclear is expensive, there's no denying it. Decommissioning a plant will cost money, will be complicated, there's no way around it. That's why nuclear plants tend to be built for the long term. If they can run for 50 years, their initial and final costs are amortized and the plants can even turn a profit.

          If costs are not an issue, proper plans do exist to store the radioactive materials off in sealed containers. No, it's not ideal, but we're not supposed to destroy nuclear plants every 5 years for whatever

  • We tried promoting 'green jobs' here in oregon, with various tax and regulatory incentives. It was a failure... or, more properly, 'is' a failure, because it's still ongoing.

    Nothing wrong with green jobs and alternative energy, as such; but they have to be generated organically from market forces and technological advances. If you attempt to force markets one direction or another with laws, you're going to end up with a less optimal economy. That happens with price fixing, tax subsidies, or any other
    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Friday September 09, 2011 @06:12PM (#37358208)
      Except that it's not a level playing field. Fossil fuels get heavily subsidized. According to this, (which I have not independently verified or checked sources on) solar would be cheaper if that was turned around. [suntimes.com]

      At the very least "less optimal economy" seems like disingenuous or stupid way to judge the cost/benefit to me. The costs of global warming, asthma, coal-related deaths, and smog would massively tilt the scale in favor of green. We've let the economists and corporations convince us that fossil fuels' external costs will never ever ever have to be paid off though, just as we let economists and irresponsible politicians convince us that deficits don't matter.
      • by Solandri (704621)

        Fossil fuels get heavily subsidized. According to this, (which I have not independently verified or checked sources on) solar would be cheaper if that was turned around.

        Alas, I wish that were true, but it isn't. The subsidies for fossil fuels appears huge because the vast majority of energy generated comes from fossil fuels. Once you normalize by the amount of energy generated [eia.gov] (p6, table ES5), you find that the subsidy for fossil fuels is about $1.10 per MWh, while the subsidy for solar is around $24.34

        • by olau (314197)

          Germany and a few other EU countries [caithnesswindfarms.co.uk] have recognized the danger from wind, and established exclusion zones around wind turbines where people are prohibited from entering (600m radius for Germany, 500m for others).

          That surprised me. I tried googling for exclusion zone and windfarms without finding anything conclusive (the information in the link you gave is incoherent and produced by a organization "run by a group of people concerned about the proliferation of windfarms"). I'm sorr

        • Exclusion zones are mainly for offshore wind parks. I can not find any source for an exclusion zone in germany as you claim. A huge amount of wind mills are just build on fields for wheat or corn. The farmers just farm their land like usually ...

  • Badass expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2011 @05:54PM (#37358116)

    Like all decisions driven by irrational fears, this is a bad move.
    Germany already has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe (22 Cents/kWh versus 12 Cents/kWh in France, for example) and switching to super-expensive solar power and unstable wind turbines will prove to be eye-wateringly expensive, especially since there's very little energy storage capacity (eg. storage basins) and the existing energy transport infrastructure (ie. pylons across the country) is proving to be rather inadequate and has to be upgraded, naturally at huge economic and political cost (read: lots of NIMBY demonstrations).

    Germans are very unrealistic about a lot of things (I'm German, BTW), and I think a lot of people are going to come down with a loud thump in this country when they're finally presented with the inevitable sky-high bills for all this energy utopia.

    Hard figures: I'm reckoning on electricity prices of around 30 Cents/kWh in 5 years or so.

    My 30 cents to the discussion.

    Cheers,
    Gerald

  • by RudyHartmann (1032120) on Friday September 09, 2011 @06:02PM (#37358166)
    This will mean more and more hydrocarbons will have to be used to sustain the German economy. This is a hysterical political response from form uniformed and misguided environmental do gooders. I made an earlier post in another article about thorium reactors. These have no where the dangerous consequences of uranium/plutonium reactors. Thorium reactors have already been built in the US. But the reason why they never went commercial is because you cannot produce nuclear weapons from them in a practical sense.They better hope that fusion becomes viable soon. But I doubt it. People need to be more educated themselves and stop listening to lying politicians and self serving demagogues of fanciful ideologies.
  • Easy: One child family for 5 generations, population drops a factor of 32. Revert to burning wood.

  • by afidel (530433) on Friday September 09, 2011 @06:43PM (#37358396)
    They aren't really dropping nuclear, they are exporting it across the Rhine to France. The analysis I've seen is the only way the Germans keep up with historic demand growth short of tanking their economy is to build more interconnects to France and let the French operate those horrible nuclear plants.
    • by antifoidulus (807088) on Friday September 09, 2011 @11:36PM (#37360146) Homepage Journal
      Well there are serious doubts that, in Germany anyway, electricity use will continue to grow at all, let alone at historic rates. Increased efficiency combined with a population that at best has near zero growth means that really the only place increased demand can even come from is industry, but even that is unlikely. Although the German manufacturing base has fares better than most of it's developed world counterparts, it is still subject to the same prevailing trends. Ultimately I think that at least a couple of these plants will not be replaced at all as there simply will be less of a demand for electricity.
  • yes, it was good while it lasted. Well for some of it. LFTR is the future, but we need the present nuclear power. Too bad Germany won't have it. Slaves to Russia.

  • by Frangible (881728) on Friday September 09, 2011 @08:05PM (#37359064)
    Wait, what? While I thought doing away with nuclear in the hopes that solar and wind will be economical in the short term and not throw Germany's economy somewhere south of Greece was a bit hopeful, replacing it with coal? Really? Coal?

    This isn't even environmentalism. This is just poor, emotional decision making.

    Yes, technically coal is "renewable" via long term geological processes but you can breed crazy amounts of fissile material and recycle spent nuclear fuel so that's really not much of an argument.

    Japan's new PM also intends to close down all of Japan's fission plants (though I didn't see a timetable) and I'm sort of worried that will just end up making more coal plants as well.
  • Scams and Games (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tom (822) on Friday September 09, 2011 @10:27PM (#37359842) Homepage Journal

    I live in Germany, and I've been following this closely.

    First of all, a former government had already decided on a stop on nuclear power, at a much earlier date. The current government reversed that as one of the first major things. It took Fukushima and a huge public outcry for them to reconsider.

    So that's the first scam - those who are now hailed as the ones leading Germany into a brighter, greener future had to be forced to walk that path.

    The main replacements for the nuclear plants will be coal plants. Which, as everyone familiar with the subject, put out not only more CO2, but also more radiation. Their advantage is that they are less likely to fail catastrophically with nuclear fallout. That's the second scam - energy generation in Germany will actually be a lot less clean and less green.

    The choice to go with coal is mostly due to the responsible people clinging to the "baseline" concept, which says you need a certain amount of power stations that output the same amount of electrical energy no matter what the time of day, climate, temperature, season, etc.
    That's the third scam, because it is an outdated model. With 21st century technology and systems, the variability of alternative energy sources can be compensated over types or distances and easily create a reliable baseline equivalent. However, those are distributed, decentralized systems, and the technology and business models of big power corporations are designed for large, centralized power stations. They need time to change (if they even want to), and the government has been nice to give them that time. Did anyone yell "campaign contributions"? Please... you have such a bad image of politicians...

    Viewed as a whole, the entire thing is a game to stay in power and to find a middle way to please both the corporate sponsors and the voting public. But it has no vision, no conviction and no drive. With the next election, or if public opinion changes, everything will be up for grabs again.

    When you read something about politics that mentions a far-future date, always count how many elections are inbetween now and then...

  • I admire efforts to protect the public but coal is a killer. Tidal energy is enormous. Solar is wonderful and windmills can do a whiz of a job. For those that think there is not a lot of wind get up in the air a couple of hundred feet and things seem quite different. The coastal US has wind over the oceans that never quits and tidal energy as well.
    We have an outfit that is zapping our garbage mountains with great energy and converting t

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.

Working...