Originally published at Green Energy Times Yes, I meant “a million.” It was not hyperbole. Every day, I search the news for articles on energy and climate change. I gather news items, with links to the original articles, put them up in a daily post on my blog, geoharvey.com. I … [continued]
It is not just the carbon footprint. During the Civil War, a postage stamp to mail a letter cost 3¢. It was still 3¢ when I was a kid. There had been times of inflation, but the price of the stamp had not changed. In fact, during the Civil War, … [continued]
Based on what I have seen, I think it is safe to say most people who visit the CleanTechnica website really want an energy transformation, ending the use of fossil fuels, replacing ICE monster polluters with EVs. But there is one real problem we have to address, and it comes … [continued]
I have never seen the nuclear industry address the question of why their safety analysis calculations are off by an order of magnitude. Until they do, and I think it should include a gigantic mia culpa, my own choice would be not to allow any of their fantastical designs to be built.
A lot of people are not able afford today’s EVs, even used. If we are to get rid of the old, polluting cars around us, we need a new class of car for them.
The end times of a cult are when things get dangerous. And the personality cult of Donald Trump senses the end is near. This is where things can get dicey.
Denial of reality is dangerous. When it is institutionalized, it becomes dangerous to large numbers of people, sometimes focusing most heavily on those who support it.
President Trump has claimed to be economically successful based on a rather small set of metrics. One is joblessness data. Another is the Dow Jones Industrial Index (DJI). There are people who believe in his success, based on those limited data. They should look deeper.
The nuclear industry has based much of its analysis on what I believe is demonstrably flawed thinking. I would classify numbers from the nuclear industry in three types. Some are predictably spot-on. Some are predictably off, with the true value turning out to be greater by a factor of two or more. And some are predictably, and sometimes demonstrably, off by at least an order of magnitude. Which number falls into which category seems to depend entirely on what it is to be used for.
This morning, the first story I saw was one of Steve Hanley’s latest articles on CleanTechnica, “Should People Be Prevented From Living In Fire And Flood Prone Areas?” It seems a majority of people in the U.S. would support a ban on building in areas at risk from such natural disasters as flooding and fires. A majority would also support buying out people whose homes are at risk.
