Thursday, November 4, 2010

UK greens in media uproar over nuclear energy

A television program interviews environmental leaders endorsing nuclear energy

Circus Strong Man(NucNet) A group of environmentalists across the world believe that, in order to save the planet, humanity must embrace the very science and technology they once so stridently opposed.

A key group of green leaders has changed their minds about nuclear energy. A fair amount of heavy lifting is taking place pro-and-con.

The group of leading environmentalists says that green opposition to nuclear energy has led to more CO2 emissions. They say green opposition to nuclear energy has led to one billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) being pumped into the atmosphere.

In a documentary being broadcast on UK television network Channel 4 Nov 4, a number of high-profile activists have spoken out in favor of nuclear energy.

Like other green campaigners including James Lovelock, author of ‘The Gaia Theory’ (Amazon), Mark Lynas said the necessity for a constant supply of clean energy has led him to “come out” as a supporter of nuclear technology. (photo and profile of Lynas at Telegraph UK)

He said in the past the conservationist movement “blindly opposed” nuclear because of the link to nuclear weapons, meaning that the world has continued to rely on dirty fossil fuels.

greenhouse_gases “Green anti-nuclear campaigning has already added to the atmospheric stock of carbon dioxide, probably to the tune of more than a billion tonnes,” he said. “Why? Because nuclear plants, which were opposed by greens in the 1970s and 1980s, were replaced by coal plants.

“In hindsight that was obviously a mistake, but it is one that today’s environmental lobby groups seem determined to repeat.”

Mr Lynas said: the documentary follows him in a visit to Chernobyl, site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster. He discovers that wildlife in the area is thriving, and that the effects of the radioactive contamination on people are much less serious than previously thought.

“That is what the science says, yet many green groups continue to spread myths about tens of thousands of people dying because of Chernobyl when the actual death toll so far – according to a major UN report published in 2006 – has likely been only around 65.”

He added: “My view, as one of the contributors to the film, is simple: the greens can dish it out, but they can’t take it. This is a real debate and the environment movement needs to tackle it head-on rather than asserting that all challenges must be part of some imagined evil conspiracy.”

Green lobby has failed to address the real issues

Green LobbyIn this film, according to Channel 4, these life-long diehard greens advocate radical solutions to climate change, which include GM crops and nuclear energy. They argue that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.

As author and environmentalist Mark Lynas says:

'Being an environmentalist was part of my identity and most of my friends were environmentalists. We were involved in the whole movement together. It took me years to actually begin to question those core, cherished beliefs. It was so challenging it was almost like going over to the dark side. It was a like a horrible dark secret you couldn't share with anyone.'

Not taking it lying down

Understandably, Friends of the Earth in the UK is upset with the program. In a video and long rebuttal on its website, Craig Bennett, a spokesman for UK FOE said "A TV documentary about the green movement is pushing tired myths about nuclear and GM crops."

"We're always up for having a debate - but this is just misinformation based largely on the views of lobbyists and journalists with books to sell."

In a video rebuttal, (below) FOE seems more concerned about genetically modified crops than nuclear energy. A debate on Twitter is underway at: #c4green

FOE UK Video rebuttal

According to Channel 4, the main protagonists argue in the film that the advantages to nuclear energy of it being a low-carbon or zero-carbon technology now outweigh the disadvantages.

They say that the risk from nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl have been overstated and that greens should accept nuclear power as part of the UK’s energy mix.

It’s not likely, but you never know.

# # #

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Vietnam signs nuclear reactor agreements with Russia and Japan

The combined value of the two deals could be worth $11 billion

modular unitsRussia and Vietnam signed a $5.6 billion deal Oct 31 to build two Russian VVER 1,000 MW reactors. In the same week

Japan announced it is closing a deal with Vietnam to build two more reactors in the same power range. With the Russian reactors coming in at $2,800/Kw, the combination of eight reactors in the two deals could be worth $11 billion.

Vietnam has several strategic objectives for building the reactors.

First, it needs the electricity to support its growing manufacturing role as an exporter to the West. Intel announced Oct 29 it is opening a $1 billion microchip manufacturing plant, the biggest in the company's history.

Second, Vietnam has huge bauxite deposits, the world's third largest deposit, in its central highlands. It wants to develop a finished goods aluminum industry which requires a lot of electricity.

Third, Vietnam knows it cannot compete with China for Mideast fossil fuels. It needs electricity from uranium fueled nuclear reactors to power its economy.

Read the full story exclusively online at Cool Hand Nuke, a nuclear energy jobs portal and a whole lot more.


# # #

Iran’s commercial reactor is not the problem

Getting the government to give up its uranium enrichment program is the key issue

vver-fuel-assemblyIran started this month inserting 163 fuel assemblies into a Russian built 1000 MW VVER light water reactor located at Bushehr on Iran's Persian Gulf coast. In a few months, technicians will withdraw controls rods to start the process of operating the reactor and making electricity.

The fuel is enriched to approximately 4.6%. Russia has agreed to supply the fuel for the reactor for the next 10 years and to take it back. Many nonproliferation experts say that this arrangement ensures that the reactor will not be able to support development of nuclear weapons.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Jerusalem Post on October 26,

"The United States does not see Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor as a threat. Our problem is not with their reactor at Bushehr, our problem is with their facilities at places like Natanz and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program."

Uranium symbol The mainstream news media has made a big deal out of fuel being loaded in the reactor, but the real threat is Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Iran is enriching uranium to 20% U-235.

This has raised fears it will eventually enrich to 90% which is bomb making material, also called “highly enriched uranium,” or HEU.

Will the latest round of sanctions make a difference? Can Iran, with its fractured internal politics, negotiate and implement an agreement with the western powers? How real is it’s offer to return to negotiations Nov 10th?

Read all about it at the ANS Nuclear Cafe now online.

# # #

Czech $25 B nuclear deal still in play

Russians woe Czech suppliers for Vietnam reactor jobs

bid cover sheetThe fact that the bid process for up to five new nuclear reactors at Temelin in the Czech Republic has been delayed for a year is not unusual. Just look at the contrary decisions by the U.S. government and Constellation over Calvert Cliffs to see how competing interests can scuttle a major energy deal. What is unusual is that in the case of the planned expansion of Temelin, the utility that runs them, and the government which believes it has a stake in the decision, are at odds over the one-year delay announced last month.

Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas said Oct 19 the selection of the winning bidder will be delayed by one year to 2013, but he also said that construction would proceed to meet the 2020 start-up date envisioned in the original schedule. In doing so Necas confirmed once again a paradigm well documented on this blog that politicians are always more confident than engineers.

The utility CEZ, which will build, own,and operate two and as many as five new reactors worth upwards of $25 billion, has short-listed three firms – Areva, Westinghouse, and Atomstroyexport. The Russians, who once controlled the then much larger Czechoslovakia in the Cold War era, retain the idea that the now smaller Czech republic remains within their sphere of influence. They’ve already announced they believe they will win the bid hands down.

The Russians have major energy deals with most of eastern Europe, Germany, and Poland for natural gas. If they win the $25 billion Temelin contracts, they could easily dominate the nuclear energy space as well. The principle seems to be Russia follows energy markets as a matter of state policy.

Who's in charge of the future of Temelin?

In what looks like Soviet style central planning, Czech PM Necas told financial wire services Oct 19 that the government, and not CEZ, will make the strategically significant decisions about the timing of the award to build the reactors and who will get the jobs.

Speaking after a meeting with government ministers including his national security advisors, Necas said:

“This is an incredibly important tender that carries considerable security, economic, and geo-polticial risks. It is a basic strategic question for the state. And the responsibility for such a decision cannot lie in the hands of a private company, even if the majority owner is the state. Only the Czech government can be responsible for such a strategic decision.”

Russia’s sphere of influence?

velvet-revolutionWell, there you have it. From an energy perspective, it looks like the Czech government is still a puppet of the Russian bear. So much for the “velvet revolution” when it comes to energy deals.

But wait! It turns out the Russians are capitalists after all. According to wire service reports, Atomstroyexport is asking Czech manufacturing firms to provide components for its new contract for two 1,000 MW VVEr reactors to be built for Vietnam.

Czech nuclear equipment manufacturer Skoda JS, which already makes parts for Russian reactors, is reportedly in the “early stages of negotiations” with Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom for future supply contracts for nuclear new build in Vietnam. Skoda JS project manager Roman Zdebor told NucNet Nov 2 that the construction of Russian-built VVER units in the future was likely to include Czech companies in the supply chain.

Carrot sticksHe said Czech suppliers were taking part in the construction of two units in Vietnam, Ninh Thuan-1 and Ninh Thuan-2. Russia and Vietnam have signed an agreement for the construction of the 1,000-megawatt VVER units.

Speaking at the VVER 2010 international conference in Prague in the Czech Republic, Mr Zdebor said it was “assumed” that Czech companies would also participate in more Rosatom new build contracts outside Russia, like the one at Temelin.

He said this has been “assured at the highest level” and that Rosatom is looking to “enhance cooperation more generally” with Czech companies.

Local content and technology transfer

ALEXANDER ZHUKOVThis brings us back to the pleadings of the Czech utility executive who is in charge of the bid process. Vaclav Bartuska has told all three bidders that local content of the new reactors and technology transfer will be key factors, along with price and schedule, in picking a winner.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov (right) understands this. He met Oct 19 with Czech Industry and Trade Minister Martin Kocourek and stressed that Czeck suppliers would be getting a good deal on the VVER project in Vietnam. So it looks like the Russians are getting in early on the local content option. Jobs are jobs no matter where the parts go.

In point of fact, it looks like Bartuska has given Zhukov and opening and the guy has punched a hole in the defensive line scoring a first down with the contracts for Czech manufacturers.

Who will pay for the first two reactors?

ace in the holeThe Russians have not yet played the ‘ace-in-the-hole’ they hold, which will likely be an offer to self-finance the construction of the reactors. CEZ CEO Martin Roman told financial wire services Oct 20 that the cost of the first two reactors will be about $11.3 billion. He said the utility is “looking for partners” to finance the deal. However, in another breath he also said the utility could finance the project on its own.

Roman confirmed what this blog reported last month which is that the Temelin reactor complex is being built to be a major exporter of electricity to Germany and Poland. If Russia builds and controls the reactors, it will be taking a new step in dominating the energy supply of these countries. It already is a major supplier of natural gas. Nuclear power is the obvious next play on the energy chessboard.

Impact on Temelin of Germany’s nuclear life extension

The fact that Germany is allowing its 17 reactors to operate past 2020 may have influenced the decision to delay the award of bids in 2012. CEZ had been counting on selling electricity from the first two new units at Temelin across the border. The units are to enter revenue service in 2020 and 2021. Czech Industry & Trade Minister Martin Kocourek told wire services that the global recession had reduced electricity demand, bringing about the setback.

Should the utility go ahead in 2013, it still must decide how to finance the project and whether suppliers could be expected to take equity stakes. A key issue will be where CEZ can sell its generated power. In a September presentation to investors the firm said it planned to market electricity in Germany, Poland and other neighboring countries.

Germany’s recent decision to keep its 17 reactors operating well past the original 2020 closure deadline appears to have played into the CEZ change of heart regarding the Temelin tender. It has delayed but not stopped the biggest new reactor project in Europe. It’s high stakes for everyone.

# # #

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

NRC’s Ostendorff interviewed

US NRC: Global nuclear energy revival expected


NRC Commissioner William C. Ostendorff speaks to Energy IQs Bryan Camoens on why international cooperation is valuable when it comes to nuclear energy. Commissioner Ostendorff also touches on the lack of skilled nuclear related workers and why massive growth of nuclear energy is expected.

Bryan Camoens:

What are some of the regulatory challenges and opportunities for expanding and new nuclear power programs?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

The rising interest in new and expanding nuclear power programs presents many challenges and opportunities for the global nuclear community. A nuclear power program is a venture that can have a lifetime of up to 100 years or more. Therefore, a major challenge is the development of an effective and sustainable national infrastructure for nuclear safety and security. By infrastructure, I am referring to government and legal frameworks, organizational competence and technical capability of the operating entities, and associated human resource and development activities.

In this context, a key challenge is the establishment of an effective and independent regulatory body. In my view, regulatory effectiveness involves independence, clarity, reliability, efficiency, and openness in how the regulator conducts its business. With respect to regulatory independence, I believe that the regulator must be independent from the license holder and other entities so that it is free from undue pressure from interested parties.

I think the interest in new and expanding nuclear power programs provides a great opportunity to build upon and enhance international cooperation in the global nuclear community. Collectively, we have over fifty years of combined experience with commercial nuclear power. There are many insights and lessons learned to be shared in nuclear safety and security.

There are ongoing international efforts, bilateral and multilateral, aimed at supporting the safe and secure introduction and expansion of nuclear power. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) is a key player in many of these efforts. I believe that continued international cooperation is vital to ensure that plans for nuclear program development do not move faster than plans for establishing the necessary safety infrastructure and capacity.

Bryan Camoens:

How valuable is international cooperation when it comes to nuclear energy?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

International cooperation, particularly for nuclear safety and security, is vitally important. The USNRC is an active participant in many international cooperative efforts in this regard. I take note of the significant nuclear reactor plant construction activity currently underway around the world, with about 60 reactors under construction in 15 countries. The rapid expansion of existing nuclear power programs and the wider use of radioactive sources and ionizing radiation throughout the world highlight the need for continued and improved international cooperation to address the associated challenges. The multinational nature of today’s nuclear industry underscores this need.

These activities are not limited to the borders of any one country. A nuclear activity in one country is more than likely to involve governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, and even the public in other countries. This multinational dimension creates complexities in supply chains and operational impacts that require good communication, effective cooperation, and appropriate oversight by regulators, vendors, and operators to ensure high levels of safety. I think it is well understood that a major nuclear power plant accident anywhere in the world would present a major challenge to the continued use of nuclear power throughout the world. We all benefit by international collaboration and sharing of lessons learned.

Bryan Camoens:

What is the rationale for looking towards nuclear as part of the power mix and is it an economically viable option?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

As the regulator of the United States nuclear industry, the USNRC looks at whether a proposed nuclear power plant would meet our safety requirements for an operating license. While we examine whether an applicant has the resources to meet our requirements, a project’s overall economic viability (e.g., whether to proceed with a proposed nuclear plant or a natural gas facility) lies outside our safety requirements and is a decision for the utility licensee. The U.S. Department of Energy provides policy direction for the choice of power sources in the United States.

Bryan Camoens:

How is the global skills shortage going to impact including nuclear in the energy mix?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

I think the need for technically competent and highly skilled nuclear workers is widely recognized, not only in the United States, but also throughout the world. The USNRC shares this need for skilled technical staff. In order to keep the nuclear education system healthy, the USNRC manages a multi-million dollar grant program to assist colleges and universities with nuclear-related education and training programs. We have seen encouraging signs of revival in nuclear engineering programs in the United States. I would expect that the supply of skilled nuclear workers will rise to meet projected demands in the future.

Bryan Camoens:

Chernobyl still haunts the public because of the devastation it caused, how can you overcome anti-nuclear sentiments - social, environment, corporate responsibilities?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

This question pertains to an issue in which I have a keen interest – clear communications and effective outreach. As professionals in a highly technical field, we tend to be more comfortable communicating in our technical lexicon and jargon. However, that is not the best way to get our messages across to the public. I think the regulator and the nuclear industry have different but complementary responsibilities for effective communications and outreach with the public. As a regulator, our communications goal is to promote the understanding of risks associated with this technology and the bases for our regulatory actions. In doing so, the regulator needs to ensure that the public, who may not have a technical background, easily understands the messages in the context of other risks accepted every day.

I believe that it is also important for the public to have confidence in a strong regulator. A recent report from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) compared nuclear accident risks with those from other energy sources. What caught my attention was the impressive safety record of the nuclear industry compared to other energy sectors. A strong and independent regulator is a vitally important factor in laying the foundation for a continued strong safety record. The NEA report also showed a significant correlation between the trust in regulators and the belief that nuclear power plants can be operated safely, as well as a strong correlation between public trust of the nuclear industry and public trust in the regulator. This should be intuitively obvious. The collective focus by the industry and a strong regulator on safety, good communication, and meaningful outreach can help to build and maintain public confidence in the safe operation of nuclear facilities.

Bryan Camoens:

What are the current initiatives and the expected timeframe to integrate nuclear into the energy mix?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

The USNRC has received 18 license applications for 28 new nuclear power plants; of these, 13 applications for 22 units are under active NRC review. We are also reviewing 3 new reactor design certification applications and 2 amendments to already approved design certifications. The USNRC’s current review timelines suggest that we will come to the first final decisions on the safety of new reactor designs and associated license applications in the near term. If the USNRC approves these licenses, some estimated project construction schedules call for approximately four to five years at least before they could begin operation. If all activities proceed to plan, the first of the new plants in the United States could be connected to the grid by the second half of this decade.

Another current initiative is with small modular reactors. While there are a number of technical and policy issues that require resolution, I can foresee small modular reactor designs making a contribution near the end of this decade if the technical and policy issues are adequately resolved and if the concept is environmentally viable.

Bryan Camoens:

What is the government’s role in driving nuclear energy policy forward?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

The USNRC’s role is overseeing the safe and secure operation of existing nuclear power plants and ensuring that new nuclear power plants meet all the licensing requirements for safe and secure operation. This role requires a predictable and stable framework for regulation. The U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for shaping the energy policy and portfolio of the United States and the promotion of various energy sources, including nuclear power.

Bryan Camoens:

In your opinion is Nuclear a feasible option for the future of power generation or are there still safeties, technological and political issues that need to be addressed?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

The USNRC has already certified several new reactor designs as being suitable for licensing in the United States and is currently examining several other new reactor designs. In general, the basic safety issues are addressed in these design certification reviews. The USNRC will continue to review new reactor license applications to ensure that the selected design is appropriate for a given site. It is my belief that continued engagement and education of the public can, in most cases, address any potential concern.

Bryan Camoens:

How will the nuclear sector evolve over the next decade?

Commissioner William C. Ostendorff:

One possibility I believe is that the nuclear energy sector may evolve from one that is based on large, light-water reactor designs to one that has greater variety of reactor sizes and coolant types. Regardless of how the industry evolves, I am confident that the USNRC will ensure that any evolutionary changes are safe and secure. I also believe that the projected demand for nuclear power generating capacity is a function of worldwide economic growth as well as associated policy decisions on matters such as objectives to reduce carbon emissions.


Commissioner William C. Ostendorff will be speaking at the Nuclear Energy Asia Conference. For more details on the conference drop them an email at or visit

Webinar ~ Can companies do well by doing good?

ROI & The Triple Bottom Line

November 10, 1 PM ET / 10 AM PT Free Registration here

A triple bottom line company is usually defined as one that makes an effort to consider the social and ecological consequences of its actions, in addition to the financial ones, establishing people, planet, and profit as the three criteria for measuring success. Nowadays, most companies claim to value social and environmental responsibility, whether or not they practice it in reality.

But these claims seem to run contrary to traditional economics. Are companies that put broader social and environmental concerns ahead of profits denying their competitive nature and dooming themselves to failure?
Actually, a growing body of evidence suggests that the triple bottom line can be a viable business strategy and not just a marketing ploy.

Successful companies need talented, committed employees and loyal customers. More and more business enterprises understand that the most talented employees measure professional success in terms of meaning and significance as well as money and status. And consumers increasingly want to buy from companies that do business in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner.

Can you measure success?

abbacusAt the same time, traditional “hard” performance metrics have not gone away: companies still measure success in terms of units sold, savings realized and dollars earned, and will do so for as long as capitalism endures. In this live webcast, we'll tackle the challenge of how companies can do well by doing good:

  • How do companies with TBL values measure success?
  • Can business really expect financial returns beyond good PR out of TBL investments?
  • How can we distinguish real CSR and environmental stewardship from greenwashing? Why should businesses choose one route over the other?
  • What kind of difference to consumer behavior does operating with TBL values make?


ImageRyan Schuchard is Manager for Climate and Energy at BSR. His recent work includes starting BSR’s Energy Efficiency Partnership for supply chain management, launching Walmart’s global supplier energy-efficiency program based at their global procurement headquarters in Shenzhen, and leading global climate policy intelligence for a US$30 billion-plus extractives company. He has co-authored chapters in Corporate Responses to Climate Change (Greenleaf Publishing) and Carbon Trading (ICFAI Books), in addition to numerous reports and articles.

ImageNick Aster is founder of TriplePundit, and specializes in using online technology to advance conversations on sustainability. He has worked with Mother Jones magazine, as well as companies including Nike, SAP, Citibank, Gawker Media, Offermatica, and many others. Nick worked for many years on TreeHugger, the most popular environmental website in the world. He holds an MBA in sustainable management from the Presidio School of Management and graduated with a BA in History from Washington University in St. Louis.

ImageDebbra A.K.Johnson is the Global Marketing Manager for Sustainable Operations and Clean Technologies - two DuPont Sustainable Solutions practices that work to help clients achieve triple bottom line results. With hands-on experience in Life Cycle Assessments, Debbra has completed package printing and platemaking LCA’s for DuPont Packaging Graphics, and went on to launch a program to recover and reuse printing plate waste – a first in the industry. She is a member of the DuPont Sustainability Network, a frequent presenter, and she serves on the Sustainable Green Printing Partnership Board of Directors.

Webinar Sponsorship

SMT Logo

Dupont logo

Sunday, October 31, 2010

The cost of a sustainable energy future

It’s cheaper than you think and produces better results when you use nuclear energy in the mix

Guest Blog Post by:

James ConcaDr. James Conca, Senior Scientist
Institute for Energy and the Environment
College of Engineering
New Mexico State University

As in all steady-state systems, humanity must attain a sustainable energy mix sometime in the future. Unless nuclear and renewable energy are a considerable part of that mix, humanity will go through a period of environmental and economic upheaval.

If energy growth estimates are even marginally correct, the world will achieve a consumption of over 30 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (30 tkWhrs/yr) by mid-century.

While large unconventional fossil fuel resources are still available to be developed, the economic and environmental costs are large. How the rise of renewables and nuclear will alter our dependence on fossil fuels depends upon economic and political forces.

This work presents an ethical annual energy requirement for the world, 30 tkWhrs/yr, that can be achieved by 2040, and also proposes a sustainable mix to achieve that level, i.e., a third fossil fuels, a third renewables and a third nuclear. (see large graphic below)

Cost of energy by type

raising_capitalThe costs of energy produced for each primary energy source, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, and the total energy produced between 2010 and 2060 using this mix, are calculated.

The total cost to produce 1,260 tkWhrs over that time period is $62.3 trillion in 2009 dollars, or about 2% of global GDP annually, and the CO2 emissions are cut in half relative to the baseline mix.

The cost of this alternative mix is about 20% lower than the $75.4 trillion to produce the same amount of energy from the more anticipated expectations of energy growth and distribution that still have fossil fuels producing about 60% of world power. Adoption of this alternative energy mix, therefore, provides substantial benefits, both economic and environmental.

Costs include construction (figure above), operation and maintenance (O&M), fuel, decommissioning and a possible carbon tax. Costs not discussed include electrical grid upgrade and connectivity of renewables, transportation issues, and non-carbon-tax externalities such as pollution and health care costs associated with energy sources such as coal and solar.

Nuclear energy is cost effective

abbacusComparing apples to apples, hydro, nuclear and wind turn out to be the most cost-effective sources over the next 50 years, almost identical per kWhr produced.

The high installation costs of nuclear compared to other non-fossil fuel sources that are often cited are incorrect and stem from a misunderstanding of capacity factor and lifespan.

All decommissioning costs are relatively small, even for nuclear, and costs for a carbon tax @$15/ton of CO2 emitted are significant for the fossil fuels over this entire time period ($4.4 trillion combined) but relatively small for all alternatives (less than $0.5 trillion combined). Higher C-taxes, or Cap&Trade, equivalents are needed to force any substantial change in fossil fuel use.

Want to know more?

Conca in DC this week

Jim Conca will be in Washington, D.C. Nov 3 giving a new version of his new sustainable energy talk at the University of California's Washington Center (location, parking, & contact info) the evening of Wednesday, Nov 3 at 6:30 PM.The address is 1608 Rhode Island Avenue N.W. (map) It is open to all.

He will also giving a shorter presentation on a proposed National Energy Portfolio at the National Press Club, in their Fourth Estate Restaurant located at 529 14th St NW (map) Wednesday Nov 4 at 9:30 AM.

Book on Sustainable Energy

Jim Conca has co-authored The Geopolitics of Energy: Achieving a Just and Sustainable Energy Distribution by 2040 (Amazon) with Judith Wright. The book, is designed like a magazine, and is easily read in two to three hours. It asks the question "What future do you want, environmental degradation or environmental stewardship? (Brief video introduction to the book at Amazon)

Conca’s Cost Calculations for Sustainable Energy


# # #