The new rankings of the World's "smartest" companies is out. I was wondering about alternative energy and energy in general. Is there any "smart" company in energy sector - one which takes into account ecological costs and real taxpayer subsidies to nuclear and coal?
Turns out, the largest solar power plant in the World, built by the top ranked energy company in the World (according to MIT) which is named BrightSource - was also in the News as well - as the plant started up on time last week. BrightSource is located in Oakland no less (maybe there is a "there, there"). This is not photovoltaics, but 3-axis mirrored thermal - and the solar heat can be stored. BrightSource's 370+ megawatt facility is the first and more of this type are on the way. It is claimed that although the initial facility capital cost was pretty high, it is nevertheless competitive with nuclear, based on real quotes and lack of need to refuel every 6 years. Do not fall for the disinformation of the nuclear industry on low cost. None of nuclear would not have been possible without large government loan guarantees - and the one to BrightSource partially makes up for other solar loans gone sour. Many nuclear loans went sour too. BTW - the tax credit and loan guarantee is less than a comparable nuclear plant when one includes the real adjusted cost of fuel enrichment to the taxpayer. That is a massive hidden cost. To be fair, there is controversy of course. Energy is political. The WSJ - which has sadly degenerated into a Murdoch political tool on ecological issues - even to the extent of supporting coal - quotes incorrect cost numbers for this facility (and grossly overblown harm to wildlife)... and the numbers show that this kind of solar power will cost a third of what consumers are now paying in California. Three more facilities are underway, which certainly rankles the fossil fuel industry. Jones BTW from a California perspective, for those who wonder why consumers here do not trust nuclear in general, and will pay more for solar - here is what the Nuclear industry does not want you to consider: the infamous Rancho Seco disaster. This was suppose to be a Gigawatt level - Babcock and Wilcox designed pressurized water reactor plant which achieved initial criticality in 1974. Four years later, a power supply failure led to steam generator "dry-out". This could have been a mini TMI, Brown's Ferry or even Fukushima - but fortunately without the perfect storm of Fuku. Few appreciate how close Rancho Seco was to a gigantic catastrophe. The plant operated from 1975 to 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%. That's right over 14 years of operation - the net output was less than 40% of faceplate! Rancho Seco was closed by public referendum in 1989 (despite its operating license being good until 2008). Electric power from that plant cost more than solar, even without the extreme risk of catastrophe - and when everything is considered, there will probably never be another nuclear plant in this state until LENR is available.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
