Green illusions newsletter updated    


Versione Italiana




Green Illusions posts

Free e.Book:
Professor Emeritus Bernard L. Cohen University of Pittsburgh Still
Waiting for Greenhouse
21stCentury Science and Technology

Special Report
Misconceptions About the
Causes of Cancer

Bernard L. Cohen, Ph.D.
L E Feinendegen, MD
Myron Pollycove, M.D.
William Hazeltine Ph.D
Bruce N. Ames M.D.
Lois Swirsky Gold M.D


Share |  

07.05.2014 - The Czech government has expressed the common view of ten European countries in favour of nuclear power in a letter to the European Commission.
Citing market failures that prevent new nuclear build from supporting European goals for energy security, sustainability and emissions reductions, the letter demands a level playing field for all low-emission sources in the EU.

04.30.2014 -
Germany’s leading financial daily Handelsblatt here writes that the Andasol 3 parabolic solar power plant in Spain “is producing foremost one thing: losses“
The Andasol 3 solar power station is owned by a consortium of German power companies RWE, Rheinenergie and Stadtwerke Munich and is located in the Spanish province of Granada. When the first of its kind (Andasol 1) was built in 2009, the technology was hailed as a model to the world on how solar energy could successfully replace fossil fuels. US president Barack Obama said Spain was the way to go in terms of energy policy.
And when Andasol 3 went online in 2011, Stadtwerke München director Kurt Mühlhäuser boasted:
Andasol 3 is the the best example that we have to achieve the transition to renewable energies at the European level.”
The Handelsblatt writes the Andasol 3 solar power station is losing money and cannot operate profitably. Stadtwerke München has had to write off 64 million euros, Rheinenergie 17 million, and RWE has admitted that the write-offs will be “considerable”.


Author and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog; co-founder of The Well and The Long Now Foundation

In his 1976 book, A Scientist at the White House, George Kistiakowsky, President Eisenhower's science adviser, told us what he wrote in his diary in 1960 on being exposed to the idea by the Federal Radiation Council: It is a rather appalling document that takes 140 pages to state the simple fact that, since we know virtually nothing about the dangers of low-intensity radiation, we might as well agree that the average population dose from manmade radiation should be no greater than that which the population already receives from natural causes; and that any individual in that population shouldn't be exposed to more than three times that amount, the latter figure being, of course, totally arbitrary. Later in the book, Kistiakowsky, who was a nuclear expert and veteran of the Manhattan Project, wrote: "… a linear relation between dose and effect… I still believe is entirely unnecessary for the definition of the current radiation guidelines, since they are pulled out of thin air without any knowledge on which to base them. Sixty-three years of research on radiation effects have gone by, and Kistiakowsky's critique still holds. The linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation dose hypothesis, which surreally influences every regulation and public fear about nuclear power, is based on no knowledge whatever. At stake are the hundreds of billions spent on meaningless levels of "safety" around nuclear power plants and waste storage, the projected costs of next-generation nuclear plant designs to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide, and the extremely harmful episodes of public panic that accompany rare radiation-release events such as Fukushima and Chernobyl. (No birth defects whatever were caused by Chernobyl, but fear of them led to 100,000 panic abortions in the Soviet Union and Europe. What people remember about Fukushima is that nuclear opponents predicted that hundreds or thousands would die or become ill from the radiation. In fact nobody died, nobody became ill, and nobody is expected to.The "linear" part of the LNT is true and well documented. Based on long-term studies of survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan and of nuclear industry workers, the incidence of eventual cancer increases with increasing exposure to radiation at levels above 100 mi llisieverts per year. The effect is linear. Below 100 millisieverts per year, however, no increased cancer incidence has been detected, either because it doesn't exist or because the numbers are so low that any signal gets lost in the epidemiological noise. We all die. Nearly a half of us die of cancer (38% of females, 45% of males). If the "no-threshold" part of the LNT is taken seriously, and an exposed population experiences as much as a 0.5% increase in cancer risk, it simply cannot be detected. The LNT operates on the unprovable assumption that the cancer deaths exist, even if the increase is too small to detect, and that therefore "no level of radiation is safe" and every extra millisievert is a public health hazard. Some evidence against the "no-threshold" hypothesis draws on studies of background radiation. In the US we are all exposed to 6.2 millisieverts a year on average, but it varies regionally. New England has lower background radiation, Colorado is much higher, yet cancer rates in New England are higher than in Colorado – an inverse effect. Some places in the world, such as Ramsar in Iran, have a tenfold higher background radiation, but no higher cancer rates have been discovered there. These results suggest that there is indeed a threshold below which radiation is not harmful. Furthermore, recent research at the cell level shows a number of mechanisms for repair of damaged DNA and for ejection of damaged cells up to significant radiation levels. This is not surprising given that life evolved amid high radiation and other threats to DNA. The DNA repair mechanisms that have existed in yeast for 800m years are also present in humans. The actual threat of low-dose radiation to humans is so low that the LNT hypothesis can neither be proven true nor proven false, yet it continues to dominate and misguide policies concerning radiation exposure, making them grotesquely conservative and expensive. Once the LNT is explicitly discarded, we can move on to regulations that reflect only discernible, measurable medical effects, and that respond mainly to the much larger considerations of whole-system benefits and harms. The most crucial decisions about nuclear power are at the category level of world urban prosperity and climate change, not imaginary cancers per millisievert.

12-16.2013  -  34 GW installed in Germany produced only 2.4 GW at noon yesterday. That means a capacity factor < than 1%

11.11.2013  -  Surging energy expenses are threatening jobs and investments, says Germany’s BDI industry federation, which represents about 100,000 companies
If a corporation has a growing electric bill, it has to cut costs somewhere else. Merkel’s clean energy subsidies impose a burden on companies that equals €30 million a day. German government is planning to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2050, up from about 23 percent now. The energy switch is without precedent. The year 2014 will be key for Merkel’s energy switch.

10.09.2013  -

08.10.2013  -  Is Fukushima Daiichi’s Wastewater Really Toxic?

07.06.2013 -  "Renewable electricity is proving so unreliable and chaotic that it is starting to undermine the stability of the European grid and provoke international incidents."

After making its debut at Sundance Film Festival in January, and then at the Cannes Film Festival in May, the new nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” is now in theaters. - See more at:
After making its debut at Sundance Film Festival in January, and then at the Cannes Film Festival in May, the new nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” is now in theaters. - See more at:
After making its debut at Sundance Film Festival in January, and then at the Cannes Film Festival in May, the new nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” is now in theaters. - See more at:

07.06.2013 -  Subsidies of unreliable, intermittent energy sources like wind and solar are causing utilities to turn away from carbon-free, reliable nuclear energy sources.

After making its debut at Sundance Film Festival in January, and then at the Cannes Film Festival in May, the new nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” is now in theaters. - See more at:

06.13.2013 - Nuclear Power Documentary “Pandora’s Promise Provoking a New Environmental Movement in Favor of Nuclear Power”
After making its debut at Sundance Film Festival in January, and then at the Cannes Film Festival in May, the new nuclear energy documentary “Pandora’s Promise” is now in theaters. The film follows the journey of the environmentalist-superstars who were rabidly anti-nuclear, and have done actual research, and now “see the light.” Their views towards nuclear energy have changed very sharply, and they now advocate for it. In all of the media reporting, commentators have praised the film’s convincingness. The war-heroes-speaking-out-against-war approach is winning people over who previously either had no opinion, or who had their opinion spoon-fed to them by the very environmentalists who historically decried nuclear, and have now come to embrace it. Here is a sampling of commentary written about the film:
Scientific American
Washington Post
New York Times



06.13.2013 -"Pandora's Promise" asks us to rethink nuclear energy
The nuclear industry is death," a protester at demonstration says in the opening of the documentary feature "Pandora's Promise." But filmmaker Robert Stone, with the backing of Impact Partners and CNN Films, is hoping to turn that idea on its head. Opening in select cities Wednesday, the film aims to show that nuclear power can effectively close the gap on coal in a way that renewable energy cannot.

06.13.2013 - Yes In My Back Yard! says the people of Carlsbad, New Mexico.
There’s a secure solution to America’s nuclear waste problem: bury it under Carlsbad, New Mexico. The locals are ready — if only Washington would get out of the way.

We try to explain the so-called hormetic effect of radiation, i.e., the evolved biological responses that protect us from low doses of radiation. Humans, along with all extant plants and non-human animals, have evolved in a sea of natural radiation from ground and sky, with vast variations from one location in the world to another — variations that correlate, if at all, inversely with cancer rates and directly with life expectancy. That is, the higher the natural background radiation levels the lower the cancer rates and the greater the longevity, though many other factors can confound these correlations. We have also evolved by virtue of, and in the face of, internal metabolic processes that produce DNA-damaging reactive oxygen species (ROS) that do far more damage than radiation, and that have also required evolved protective mechanisms. We exist today only because of the presence of several levels of such biological mechanisms, from the cell to the tissue to the entire organism, which we name and explain. Thousands of epidemiological and laboratory studies over many decades have demonstrated that, while high doses of radiation sicken and kill by inhibiting protective mechanisms, low doses enhance those mechanisms and make us healthier. Hormesis is a general phenomenon of all chemical and physical agents, and radiation is no exception. Too little or too much of anything is harmful, but a midrange is healthful. The conclusion is that we may actually be radiation deficient, and that if everyone were exposed to more radiation, assuredly within limits, we would all live longer and suffer lower rates of cancer and other diseases.

08.24.2012 - It does not take long in any discussion of nuclear power before people want to talk turkey. How much does nuclear power cost?
So, what can low-carbon options offer in terms of up-front cost? Let’s take some real-world examples (for details of the following calculations, see : Comparison of four ‘clean energy’ projects).
If we take the oft-quoted Olkiluoto nuclear new build in Finland (oft-quoted because it is suffering major cost and time over-runs), we find that the new EPR design, with 1600 MWe of generation capacity, looks to be coming in at a cost of EU6.4 billion. That normalises to $6.0 bn per GWe when capacity factors are accounted for.
Dome 3 being lowered onto the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant in Finland. Cost is $6 billion per GWe, but with very high capacity factor. A large (600 MWe peak) planned wind farm in South Australia, with a proposed 120 MWe biomass generation as back-up, will cost $1.2 billion, plus and extra $0.2 billion for the connecting infrastructure. That’s about $6.9 billion per GWe. When we turn and face the sun,costs jump. Based on the proposed Moree Solar Farm, this large solar PV facility with no storage or back-up (i.e. not a true baseload solution) comes in at $19.6 billion per GWe. A concentrating solar thermal plant (based on the Spanish Gemasolar plant) with molten salt storage back-up can be had at a cost of $25.1 billion per GWe.
The lesson is clear.
Costs, like any other number, mean nothing sitting on their own. This is a question choosing the best option. Even using a notoriously expensive ‘first-of-a-kind’ nuclear example, new nuclear is still the best value for zero-carbon generation.
The proposed Moree solar PV farm comes in at $19.6 billion per GWe – with no electricity storage.
If we look beyond the infamous Finnish example to some of the other 60 new reactors under construction or more than 200 currently proposed,the picture becomes even clearer. South Korea is undertaking a substantial program of new nuclear build. Indeed, the South Koreans have sold their technology and expertise to the currently non-nuclear United Arab Emirates at a contracted price of $3.5 billion per GWe with 6 GWe to be delivered by 2018. Meanwhile the Chinese are delivering new nuclear based on the Westinghouse AP 1000 design for reported domestic cost of as low as $1.7 billion per GWe. So, if we want zero-carbon generation at scale, we would be foolish in the extreme to reject nuclear from consideration on capital cost grounds.
But what we really want is the product of the power plant, not the plant itself: that is, dependable electricity. Here, nuclear excels, delivering electricity at an excellent price, with capacity factors now exceeding 90% in the U.S. and South Korea. Perhaps even more importantly, this price will be reliable. Thanks to negligible fuel costs and no carbon emissions in the generation, nuclear power is almost completely insulated from two of the biggest incoming pressures on power prices: carbon prices and fuel scarcity. When we are building expensive infrastructure with long life, such considerations matter a great deal.
So where does that leave us? Real-world experience tells us that nuclear can provide well-priced and reliable electricity. In capital terms, nuclear is the best-value form of zero-carbon generation, with miles of daylight to the competition. That may be a surprise, but this industry has learned. New designs are predominantly more standardised in design, and more reliant on passive, rather than engineered safety systems, and come in a range of sizes. All of this brings cost down.

08.14.2912 - Some Facts About Radiation by Ted Rockwell
God’s good green earth was created out of the radioactive waste products of the great nuclear reactions that spawned the galaxies and the planets. Life arose out of, and adapted to, a much higher level of natural radiation than exists today. Nuclear radiation (ionizing radiation: alpha, beta and gamma radiation) is essential to Life; without it, organisms wither and die... 

09.12,2012 -
According to the EPA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, 1mSv/y more of background radiation is very dangerous though it's high rate of world variation .
The average dose received by all of us from background radiation is around 2.4 mSv/yr. The highest level of background radiation is in the state of Kerala and city of Chennai in southern India, where people receive average doses above 30 millisieverts per year, or 3.42 microsieverts an hour. In Brazil and Sudan, exposure can reach 40 millisieverts a year or 4.57 microsieverts an hour. Long term studies do not show increased deaths from the areas with more background radiation

09.09.2012 -
About 18 percent of Britain’s nuclear plants will be retired in the next few years.
The British government wants new low-carbon nuclear power to aid its goal, enshrined in law, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.

08.04.2012 -
125 years later, wind power still needs a subsidy.
The US Congress has been supporting wind production since at least 1978 on the premise that wind is an infant industry that needs just a few more years of mother’s milk – i.e. taxpayer handouts -- to be cost-competitive with more affordable and reliable sources of energy.
But wind has to be one of the oldest infant industries on the planet. In 1882, Thomas Edison built the Pearl Street Station in New York City—a coal fired power plant. A mere 5 years later, a Scottish academic named James Blyth built a wind turbine to make electricity and run the lights on his cabin. After 125 years of generating electricity, you would think that wind would be ready to stand on its own without special favors from the federal government, but apparently it is not. (President of the Institute for Energy Research Thomas Pyle ).

09.02.2012 - Obama Administration Gives More Green Lights for Green Projects
Renewable energy in Nevada and other Western States is getting a boost from the Obama Administration, even as the coal, oil and natural gas industries are under assault. First, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a $105 million loan guarantee to finance the development of a facility that would convert municipal solid waste into advanced biofuels in northern Nevada[i] and then President Obama announced plans to expedite the permits for seven solar and wind energy projects on federal lands in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. Further, the Interior and Defense departments announced a partnership to develop renewable energy on military lands and waters covering 16 million acres in Southwestern states including Nevada and offshore that have the potential for solar, wind, and geothermal energy developmen

08.26.2012 - South Korean reactors are 1/2 price?
"After only ten years of making their own reactors, the Koreans landed a $20 billion contract to build four reactors in the United Arab Emirates."

05.22.2012 -  A new study from MIT scientists suggests that the guidelines governments use to determine when to evacuate people following a nuclear accident may be too conservative.
 A new look at prolonged radiation exposure MIT study suggests that at low dose-rate, radiation poses little risk to DNA.

20.04.2012 - Public Trust in Nuclear Energy
"High nuclear radiation doses are delivered during a course of radiotherapy (RT) by aiming beams of radiation to kill the tumour cells. Millions of patients each year around the world receive such treatment and most return home thankful for more years of fruitful life. Such a course may last 4-6 weeks with a daily dose of 2,000mSv given each time to the tumour. Unfortunately it is not possible to restrict the radiation to the tumour alone and neighbouring tissue and organs may get as much as 1,000mSv each day - and these can indeed survive the RT course. Over a month the tumour gets more than 40,000mSv and the peripheral healthy tissue as much as 20,000mSv - that is five times the fatal
dose experienced by some Chernobyl workers! Here is a very simple sketch of how it works.
Each day the cells attempt to repair the damage caused by the radiation. For the tumour cells the repair mechanisms are marginally overwhelmed, and for the peripheral tissue with its lower dose the mechanisms are just able to complete repairs before the next day. This separation of the dose into daily treatments is named "fractionation". After 4 to 6 weeks the tumour is hopefully dead and the peripheral tissue survives". (Prof. Wade Allison Oxford University from the "Public Trust in Nuclear Energy")

30.03.3012 - Early returns to Fukushima  
Restrictions in sizeable parts of Fukushima's evacuation area have been relaxed, enabling some residents to visit at will and work towards a permanent return. Two towns have opened, and a third will follow in two weeks' time.
At midnight on 1 April the restrictions on several areas within 20 kilometres of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were revised. A significant part of these had shown dose rates caused by ambient radioactivity to be below 20 millisieverts per year - the government's benchmark for the return.

01.02.3012 - Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts
 Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011. “What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem,” Industry Minister Jose Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.

26.01.2012 - WIND power is a “folly”
WIND power is a “folly” which is “crippling” consumers with increased energy costs, a report by a leading UK think tank Civitas, Institute for the Study of Civil Society , warned yesterday. Civitas claims that “unwarranted support” for wind power is “hindering genuinely cleaner energy” and stopping the UK effectively reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. Its report states wind power is “unreliable” and requires back-up power stations – meaning that energy users “pay twice” for the “window-dressing of renewables” and again for the fossil fuels. Civitas Director Gareth Clubb said: “The paper argues we need to be renegotiating and relegislating in order to pump more climate changing gasses into the atmosphere. Full text Civitas report 

01.12.2012 - The failure of Britain’s wind farms to produce electricity in the extreme cold will cost billions of pounds, create an economic crisis and lead to blackouts, leading industrialists have warned.
In the last quarter ending December 23, UK wind turbines produced on average 8.6 per cent of british electricity, but the moment the latest bad weather arrived with snow and freezing temperatures, this figure fell to as low as 1.8 per cent. What is so worrying is that these sort of figures are not a one off,’ said Mr Jeremy Nicholson  director of the UK Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents major companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers in the steel, glass, pottery, paper and chemical industries. ‘It was exactly the same last January and February when high pressure brought freezing cold temperatures, snow and no wind. In fact last year, the failure of wind power to produce electricity was even more profound.
Then, over a few days, the lack of wind meant that only 0.2 per cent of a possible five per cent of the UK’s energy was generated by wind turbines. So little energy was generated then that the National Grid, which is responsible for balancing supply and demand of energy in the UK, was forced to ask its biggest users – industry – to ration supplies.
What really concerns industrial users is that it is Government policy to put wind power at the centre of its efforts to ensure that 30 per cent of electricity is generated by renewable resources by 2020. This means that the number of turbines now running – 3,140 – will have to be massively increased to well over 6,000 in ten years time.
Mr Nicholson said: ‘We can cope at the moment because there is still not that much power generated from wind. But all this will change. What happens when we are dependent on wind turbines for 30 per cent of our power and there is suddenly a period when the wind does not blow and there is high demand? ‘We will be forced to switch off the gas and it could even lead to power cuts. ’The Government is aware of the dangers of relying on intermittent power sources and is working on plans to encourage energy companies through financial inducements to have stand-by generation but it will cost billions to put these measures in place and we will have to pick up the tab. 
The cost of the standby generation will be paid for by industry and households through higher bills – which could double by 2020. Industry regulator Ofgem has already calculated that the cost of achieving sustainable energy targets – set by Brussels but backed by the British Government – will amount to £200 billion, which will mean that annual household fuel bills will double to about  £2,400 on average within the next ten years. 


1.01.2012 - The construction of offshore wind parks in the North Sea has hit a snag with a vital link to the onshore power grid hopelessly behind schedule. The delays have some reconsidering the ability of wind power to propel Germany into the post-nuclear era.
One of the central projects of Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right coalition government, the scrapping of atomic energy and the switch to renewable energy, has hit a major obstacle. Berlin's multi-billion-euro project is facing increasing difficulties. And the expansion of the country's offshore wind farms in particular, which Minister Röttgen considers of paramount importance, is constantly beset by new problems.,1518,805505,00.html

12.28.2012 - Dark Times Fall on Solar Sector By Yuliya Chernova
 Over the past several months, at least seven solar-panel manufacturers have filed for bankruptcy or insolvency, including two German companies in the past week—Solar Millennium AG and Solon SE—and, most notably, Solyndra LLC, the Fremont, Calif., company embroiled in a criminal investigation into whether the company defrauded the U.S. government. Of the 10 largest publicly traded companies by market capitalization whose focus is making solar components, six reported losses in the third quarter, and all but one of these 10 saw their bottom line weaken from a year earlier. Underscoring how debt is weighing down the industry, six of the 10 also had debt on their balance sheets that exceeded their market capitalizations.

12.27.2012 - Photovoltaic energy costs $ 1000 per barrel.
The Italian gov talk about more rationalization, more competition and more competitivity but it seems that these principles do not count anything in the energy sector. According to Alberto Clo, Professor of Industrial Economics at the University of Bologna and former Minister of Industry with the Dini government, photovoltaics costs $ 1000 per barrel. It is folly for the Italy foreign trade 

12.22.2011 - The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory issued a press release on December 20, 2011 titled New Take on Impacts of Low Dose Radiation. Scientific research are once more at odds with the LNT theory
The press release summarizes the results of a paper that has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. That paper is titled “Evidence for formation of DNA repair centers and dose-response nonlinearity in human cells.” The science used in the study is fascinating. Not surprisingly, the repair mechanisms work better when they are not overwhelmed by a high rate of damage caused by high dose rates. At dose rates similar to those that might be experienced as a result of using nuclear energy – even under accident release scenarios – cellular repair mechanisms appear to be particularly effective

12.17.2011  -  The wind energy industry has admitted that 1,500 accidents and other incidents have taken place on wind farms in UK over the past five years.
The figures – released by RenewableUK, the industry's trade body – include four deaths and a further 300 injuries to workers. That's four more people than were killed by nuclear energy in the UK over the last five years. 

12.08.2011  -  Wind turbine bursts into flames as hurricane-force winds (160 Km/h) hit Scotland The turbine in a North Ayrshire wind farm caught fire on Thursday afternoon as storms hit the country.
When wind turbines go bad


11.25.2011 - Spain will be the next european country to announce a new nuclear program.
Many spanish Patido Popular sources said that Spain has no alternative but to "return" to nuclear. With a deficit in the electric sector that goes beyond €20 billion Spain needs cheap electric power. It needs nuclear power. Fortunately the Partido Popular (PP) and Mariano Rajoy won by a confortable margin last sunday elections. PP intends to:

1. Cancel closure of Santa Maria Garona nuclear power plant in 2013.
2. Extend to 60 years the the service life of current nuclear power plants against a nuclear tax (like Merkel proposed in 2010 in Germany).
3. Begin a plan to select sites for new plants.

11.20.2011 - The new Italian Monti government must re-open the doors to the nuclear power in order to avoid financial bankruptcy .
The first public statement by Corrado Clini, Italian new environment minister, "I am pro-nuclear and pro-TAV", created turmoil among environmentalists.
They mentioned the 2008 interview with the new economy minister Corrado Passera, "I'm angry, because I see too many good projects delayed or blocked without reason. We are the country most dependent on hydrocarbons, and what we do? We do not invest in nuclear power and regasification plants. We have enough with false environmentalism, and ideological bias, with the fear of anything that smacks of science." The main Italian environmental leaders were quick to recall the result of the recent referendum against nuclear power. Many of them cynically thought that the new Monti government will not go on in favor of nuclear power, otherwise it will collapse in 24 hours.
But the italian financial situation is very bad.
The new Prime Minister two days ago in front the Senate said that who buys the 10 year italian bonds think about what will be Italy next ten years. If Italy will be able to pay debts or not. Then the choices of today, even in the energy sector, are not neutral but very important.
A financial investor if sees Italy mainly oriented toward the solar and wind power, will judge not prudent to buy the Italian bonds.
Italy must reopen the doors to the nuclear power immediately. Not only because italian industry will need economic and safety energy source, but to avoid the financial bankruptcy of today.

11.17.2011 - New lessons are beginning to emerge from Fukushima.
Each new problem leads to heaping on additional safety requirements. But some contradictions are beginning to raise questions: Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred. Not one. And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are people living in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than the forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.
At Fukushima this is no abstract issue. People are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period – perhaps years. And efforts to decontaminate their home sites may require stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste. People formerly living there have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.
There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening. The current restrictions are based on a desire to be “conservative.” No matter how well intended, this “conservatism” is cruelly destructive. The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current permissible radiation dose be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well under the clinical data on which he bases his proposal. Other radiation protectionists are beginning to feel concern for the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into Winter.
It’s time this draconian situation is resolved. A simple declaration of the facts about radiation protection from the proper authorities would be a good first step.  -
- Ted Rockwell


12.19.2011 - Dramatic fall of the winter FV capacity in Germany
Yesterday 12.18.2011 the 21 GW PV power installed in Germany (cost 85 billion euros) at noon gave a peak power of only 1.6 GW. This means that yesterday a 350 MW nuclear power plant (cost less than billion euros) would produce energy as all the 21000 MW of installed PV power in Germany (24 hours).
This is the program to calculate the energy output of all the German photovoltaic power  installed (21 GW)
I simplified by looking at peak output (12.18.2011) which was 1,6 GW.
Area under Gaussian peak = (peak * full width at half maximum, sice 10,30 to 14,30 = 4h)/(2,35*0.4) = (1.6* 4)/(2,35*0,4) = 6,8 GWh then 6,8 GWh/(21GW*24)= 0,013 = 1,3% "capacity factor".
A single 1 GW nuclear power plant produces (24 hours) 1GW *(0.85 capacity) * 24h = 20.4 GWh, then 6,8 / 20.4 = 0.33 GW = 330 MW nuclear power plant. In other words, all the German photovoltaic power installed (21 GW) produced (12.18.2011) the same electricity of a 330 MW nuclear power plant.


11.16.2011 - Sensible recommendation: 100 mSv/month – As High As Relatively Safe -
Dr. Wade Allison, the author of Radiation and Reason, was interviewed following a recent visit to Japan. He has a rational recommendation for the international radiation protection community – instead of setting radiation dose limits based on keeping them as close to zero as possible, why not choose levels that are based on keeping the hazard to human beings within reasonable levels.


14.12.2011 - Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski died Saturday in Poland.
He was 84. An atmospheric chemist, radiation specialist, and medical doctor. Dr. Jaworowski fought fearlessly for the truth, with major original contributions on subjects including the Chernobyl radiation hysteria, the linear no-threshold theory, and global warming.
A Scientist Who Fought For Truth.  As the head of radiation protection for Poland at the time of the Chernobyl accident, he pushed the Poland Gov. to act quickly to provide all Polish children with potassium iodide to protect their thyroids against the radioactive iodine released in the accident. Reflecting later on his action, he realized that the radiation levels were elevated, but too low to cause the reaction he was worried about at the time. Later he wrote several scientific analyses of Chernobyl, debunking the exaggerated claims of radiation damage stemming from the Chernobyl accident. In the followng link  we report the 2006 Prof. Jaworowski article  "Chernobyl: The Fear of the Unknown" published by  World Nuclear Association

11.12.2011 - Der Spiegel and the "very expensive" renewable sources
This week Der Spiegel wrote that, to achieve the german environmentally friendly energy plans, the price of electricity over the next 25 years will almost quadrupled
:  "a kWhe will have a production cost of 23.5 cents, while the today price is 6.5 cents. ".
Only for the construction of new "electricity highways" intended to carry the increased production of wind energy from northern to southern Europe and in the opposite direction solar power, "only Germany will spend over 40 billion euros over the next 10 years" . The magazine wrote that "nobody has an idea of the immense costs of this ecological revolution", while the only sure thing is that "we need to pay higher costs for electricity."

11.11.2011 - Shelving expensive wind farms in favour of cheaper nuclear and gas-fired power stations would save every Briton almost £550, it is claimed.
Government plans to cut pollution by a third by 2020 rely heavily on wind power and will cost £108billion to implement, an accountancy firm has calculated.
But shifting the emphasis away from turbines and towards nuclear and gas-fired power stations would slash the bill by £34billion, according to KPMG.
This equates to around £550 for every person in the country

11.10.2011 -  No Fukushima Radiation Deaths — No Surprises
The death toll from radiation exposure at Fukushima nuclear power plants stands at zero. Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, admitted in Washington during a roundtable discussion entitled "Fukushima: Lessons Learned," an event sponsored by Georgetown University and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

 11.09.2011 -  Forbes: The Great Green Energy Crack-Up.
Spain announced a 40% reduction in its wind power subsidy.
The European Commission’s energy department is questioning the wisdom of its go-it-alone global warming policies, citing loss of economic competitiveness.
The British government pulled the plug on its budget-bending carbon capture and storage facility. That’s where carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal is pulled out of the exhaust and sent back into the ocean floor. It sounds expensive and fanciful, and it is.
Japan announced it is reconsidering its plan to cut carbon dioxide by 25% in the next 8 years. Minister Nobutani, of the Global Environmental Affairs Office stated that “Japan’s wealth has been draining out” in its attempt to meet the target.
The price of carbon credits—what you buy as a “permit” to emit—has dropped off the table because the Greek and Italian (and soon, Spanish) crises are crashing the European economy. No one needs to buy a permit to emit carbon dioxide when the factory is down.



for comments and informations