global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[Mr Skeptic]

In the graph Mr Skeptic shows, the absolute costs are lower, but the relative costs are pretty much the same. In both cases, solar energy costs 2.5 times as much as wind energy.

 

As has already been pointed out, it is the relative cost that counts. Solar has to get down to the cost of wind energy or better, or else no energy corporation will use it for mass generation.

 

Diversification, SkepticLance. Even if solar costs significantly more than wind, it will see use as it has different failure modes and generation times. We can't be all wind, as the wind might stop blowing, or strong winds might destroy the wind farm, leaving us without electricity.

 

Additionally, there is future research. Wind power is pretty much "done". There really isn't much more to learn about propellers and generators. OK, so the blades are bigger and slightly different, but there isn't much more to learn.

 

Solar, on the other hand, has a lot more research we could do. There are so many different ways we could develop solar -- traditional semiconductors, thin film solar cells, dyes, etc. We could even go biological, like plants. In the far future, solar is what will be used for a Dysonsphere/Dysonswarm. Solar cells will be useful indefinitely far into the future of humanity.

[SkepticLance]

My answer to both iNow and Mr Skeptic is pretty much the same.

Solar panels are not currently suitable for mass generation of electricity. However, they have many other uses, where cost per kilowatt hour is not critical. The total market for solar panels is already substantial, even if it is still a tiny fraction of the market for mass generation.

 

Even if solar panel cost drops dramatically, it will never be 100% or even close to 100% for electricity generation, for a range of reasons, including the fact that it is of value less than 12 hours in 24. Storing power, such as in batteries, at least doubles the cost of the electricity.

[iNow]

My answer to both iNow and Mr Skeptic is pretty much the same.

Solar panels are not currently suitable for mass generation of electricity.

You are again asserting as fact an opinion which is not connected with the reality we are facing, and you continue to arbitrarily set your criterion for suitability impossibly high.

 

Even if solar panel cost drops dramatically, it will never be 100% or even close to 100% for electricity generation, for a range of reasons, including the fact that it is of value less than 12 hours in 24.

Not sure if you saw it the last three times I clarified this, but nobody here is arguing that solar be 100% of our generation source for electricity. Frankly, I'm not aware of ANYBODY anywhere arguing any such thing.

 

 

Storing power, such as in batteries, at least doubles the cost of the electricity.

 

You may have missed it, but it was really cool. We're a lot closer to being able to use solar to perform electrolysis. Talk about a good "battery" for all that power!

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

nsf.gov - News - Water Refineries? - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

"

New method extracts oxygen from water with minimal energy, potentially boosting efforts to develop solar as a 24-hour energy source

 

Using a surprisingly simple, inexpensive technique, chemists have found a way to pull pure oxygen from water using relatively small amounts of electricity, common chemicals and a room-temperature glass of water.

 

Because oxygen and hydrogen are energy-rich fuels, many researchers have proposed using solar electricity to split water into those elements--a stored energy source for when the sun goes down. One of the chief obstacles to that green-energy scenario has been the difficulty of producing oxygen without large amounts of energy or a high-maintenance environment.

 

Now, Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemist Daniel Nocera and his postdoctoral student Matthew Kanan have discovered an efficient way to solve the oxygen problem. They announced their findings July 31, 2008, online in the journal Science.

 

"The discovery has enormous implications for the large scale deployment of solar since it puts us on the doorstep of a cheap and easily manufactured storage mechanism," said Nocera. "The ease of implementation means that this discovery will have legs..." <more at link>

 

 

 

A snapshot showing the new, efficient oxygen catalyst in action in Dan Nocera's laboratory at MIT.

 

Credit: MIT/NSF

[swansont]

I think Mr Skeptic has presented my view point quite well. I have nothing against solar energy, except the cost. If and when it gets cheap enough, then we can use it a lot more. Right now, it remains too expensive for mass generation.

 

Since grid parity has been achieved in some areas, "if and when" is trivially falsified. It is by definition cheap enough in those areas — it should be "where." And mass generation is also present. You need to modify these claims, rather than repeating them.

 

In some locations, and under some circumstances, solar is still too expensive. However, the fastest gains in expanding the regions where solar is viable will most likely be economics rather than from research. About 70% of a standard PV cell's cost is the polysilicon (less, of course, for thin-film and other technologies)

 

But the price of that has about tripled in the last few years

http://www.industrialcontroldesignline.com/news/163701891

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6533793.html

 

So what happens when new supply comes on line and the price drops?

 

The 25 cents per kWh number is the wrong one to use, for two reasons. It's three years out of date, for one, and it's an average. The insolation of the US (and anywhere else) is not a constant — it varies with location. So the costs will be lower in regions that get more sun.

 

Solar probably won't become much cheaper than whatever the grid parity cost is, because demand will go up when that happens, and also when the geographic area of grid parity increases.

 

My answer to both iNow and Mr Skeptic is pretty much the same.

Solar panels are not currently suitable for mass generation of electricity. However, they have many other uses, where cost per kilowatt hour is not critical. The total market for solar panels is already substantial, even if it is still a tiny fraction of the market for mass generation.

 

Again, trivially falsified, as they are already being used for mass generation.

 

Even if solar panel cost drops dramatically, it will never be 100% or even close to 100% for electricity generation, for a range of reasons, including the fact that it is of value less than 12 hours in 24. Storing power, such as in batteries, at least doubles the cost of the electricity.

 

As iNow has implied, this is a strawman.

[SkepticLance]

To swansont

 

Sorry. Wrong!

Solar panels as a source of electricity are simply more costly than other sources such as coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, or wind power. The big corporations will not use a more expensive alternative for mass generation. I am not aware of any situation where solar panels can generate mass power for the national grid at a cost competitive with the five mentioned above. Though there are situations where the cost does not matter - such as powering lighthouses or other isolated facilities.

 

Solar panels are coming down in cost. But so are some of the alternatives, including nuclear and wind. The absolute cost of generation will not be the deciding factor. It is relative cost that will be the decider. The corporations will go for the cheapest method at the time. It is quite possible that one day that will be solar panels, but it is not likely to be any time soon.

 

Re the use of solar power for electrolysis.

 

Yes, I am aware of that development, which is excellent. However, it is an advance in electrolysis. It is NOT an advance in solar power. Even though the researchers used solar power, there is no reason why a commercial electrolysis plant has to use that compared to other sources of electricity. At current relative costs, it is seriously unlikely that a commercial operation would use solar. They would use the cheapest source of electricity.

[swansont]

To swansont

 

Sorry. Wrong!

Solar panels as a source of electricity are simply more costly than other sources such as coal, gas, nuclear, hydro, or wind power. The big corporations will not use a more expensive alternative for mass generation. I am not aware of any situation where solar panels can generate mass power for the national grid at a cost competitive with the five mentioned above. Though there are situations where the cost does not matter - such as powering lighthouses or other isolated facilities.

 

How about reading some of the links provided and becoming aware of these situations?

 

These facilities exist today, and more are being built, so saying that companies will not build them is laughable. One problem is that you are using the wrong numbers, which will render any analysis invalid. Electrical costs are generally not constant, either in time or geography, so looking at average costs and seeing that the average solar cost is higher than the average of others means you are ignoring the individual cases that deviate from the average.

 

In Hawaii, for example, electricity is more expensive, because the costs of importing the fuel to make it. So solar costs there are on par with these other sources. Saying that solar is "simply more costly" is too simple of an analysis.

[scalbers]

again http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

 

again http://www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf

 

I think it would be more productive to discuss the current IPCC report instead of one from over 10 years ago. There's much better scientific evidence now to debate about.

 

...................................................................................................

 

Perhaps our skeptics can comment specifically on the cost of the NanoSolar (and also Sharp) thin film solar panels. Nanosolar is stating it should (as they scale up their manufacturing plants) be comparable to coal produced electricity.

 

...................................................................................................

 

Just to reiterate the solar power discussion a bit, solar panels with the thin-film technology (and maybe some amorphous silicon as well) might be best applied at the medium "municipal" scale with plants about the size of 50MW feeding into the grid. The larger scale solar plants might be a mix of the solar panels and other types, such as parabolic solar reflectors or solar towers with mirrors, a number of which either already exist or are being built. The market can help sort out which solar technologies work best in various environments and situations.

 

Interesting about the solar energy storage at night question, that electrolysis catalyst looks promising for storage of solar electricity in the form of hydrogen.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731143345.htm

 

The large solar thermal plants also store power in hot salts and such. Of course, most energy is used during the day so solar could still be a big player to be phased into a "mixed-energy" strategy if the energy storage systems are slower to develop.

 

If solar power had reasonable tax incentives (given that oil companies have them), it would probably help. A national effort at better power grids (e.g. for DC power from solar) would also be a help.

Edited August 2, 2008 by scalbers
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

Small scale experimental plants do not count. I am talking about normal power grid large scale generation. Even in Hawaii, there are much cheaper sources than solar cells. For example : there are available now small scale nuclear plants, wind generators, probably micro-hydro etc.

[scalbers]

Swansont

 

Small scale experimental plants do not count. I am talking about normal power grid large scale generation. Even in Hawaii, there are much cheaper sources than solar cells. For example : there are available now small scale nuclear plants, wind generators, probably micro-hydro etc.

 

It seems like you're a moving target sometimes. I thought you were criticizing the lack of affordable small-scale solar systems earlier. Moving forward though can you tell us in numerical terms what your criteria for success are? Whatever that is we can then predict when the criterion will be reached or if it has already. For example, I think the current global 3.5GW of photo-voltaic power generation is pretty large scale. If you add other types of solar (solar-thermal with its huge power stations in the desert now on-grid and growing fast) it becomes more. And Nanosolar should have something like 500MW of annual solar panel production either this year or around next year. That's pretty large scale to me - and pretty much in the now, moving beyond mere "experimental". These are on-grid and low cost. Again on-grid photovoltaic energy is growing at about 70% per year. That's pretty significant I think. Solar is becoming big business already - what more could you want? And the "municipal-scale" (something like 50MW) Nanosolar plants are at a nice scale.

 

Ultimately it may be irrelevant what the size of each plant is, the total power and how fast it is growing is what should be admired more. And yes, as I said I like all the wedges - and I'd be happy to discuss each and every one of them - we can walk and chew gum as we will need them all. As an example solar energy can be used in times of calm wind. Wind energy can be used when it's cloudy.

 

Here's a good YouTube video on the state of solar power:

 

Edited August 2, 2008 by scalbers

[SkepticLance]

To scalbers

 

All is relative. A cliche, I know, but relevent. Solar energy is far too expensive relative to the alternatives.

 

Current global electricity production by wind is less than 2% but growing. Nuclear is 12%. Most of the rest is coal, gas and hydro. Solar panel generation is way less than 1%. I call that less than significant.

 

If and when solar panel electricity production becomes cost competitive, it too will grow rapidly. Right now it has a 250% cost disadvantage compared to wind, and wind is more expensive than coal or nuclear. I recognise that there are a bunch of solar wannabe's on this thread, but their wishes will not come true until the economics are right.

 

Until then, it is indulging in fantasy.

[scalbers]

To scalbers

 

All is relative. A cliche, I know, but relevent. Solar energy is far too expensive relative to the alternatives.

 

Current global electricity production by wind is less than 2% but growing. Nuclear is 12%. Most of the rest is coal, gas and hydro. Solar panel generation is way less than 1%. I call that less than significant.

 

If and when solar panel electricity production becomes cost competitive, it too will grow rapidly. Right now it has a 250% cost disadvantage compared to wind, and wind is more expensive than coal or nuclear. I recognise that there are a bunch of solar wannabe's on this thread, but their wishes will not come true until the economics are right.

 

Until then, it is indulging in fantasy.

 

Nice to see your numerical evidence so I can respond. We might still have to pin down some definitions on average cost or whatever. Let me try though. And what is your opinion about solar thermal plants as that is an important component of solar as well. I think they are doing fine in the desert southwestern states and places like Spain. More than a fantasy, they are quite real.

 

Nanosolar's panels as far as I can tell are much cheaper compared with wind than your 250% cost figure. So I think this company that is ramping up to a 500MW annual production has moved beyond your definition of "wannabe". If solar panel's overall on-grid growth continues at the present 50% growth rate in cumulative capacity (starting from .04% energy share in 2006) it will reach your 1% threshold within about 6 years. With some government tax incentives to help it could be sooner.

 

Solar heat energy usage is now about 0.5% total global energy consumption. That's more than wind at 0.3%. Wind energy is still good to consider, though it may have issues with birds.

Edited August 3, 2008 by scalbers

[iNow]

And I suggest one who thinks that solar viability is at present an uneconomical fantasy simply look to Germany.

 

I'm not sure how many ways we can show Lance wrong before he realizes it. Oh well...

[scalbers]

Yes, and as this article mentions, grid parity has already been achieved in parts of California.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1878986220071019

[SkepticLance]

scalbers

 

Your article states that solar power is 0.3% of world output. That sounds about correct to me. There is an optimistic suggestion that cost parity might be achieved by 2012. Perhaps.

 

Solar panels would be a fantastic way of solving many of the world's energy problems, if and when the cost comes down enough. I am not holding my breath.

 

In the mean time, there are lots of much cheaper ways of generating electricity.

[scalbers]

Actually the article states that 0.3% of electicity is solar in Germany. The output is 0.5% worldwide if you count other types of solar. And I'm very happy thank you with the fact that grid parity has already been achieved in certain areas (like parts of CA). Nanosolar's panels (that you have yet to acknowledge in any detail) may make this happen for some towns in Germany this year.

 

Recall that investors are putting just as much money now into solar as they are into wind. I assume they know something about the industry trends. Grid parity will be achieved in more and more places as time goes on - and 2012 is sooner than one might think. There are no alternatives sources of energy that are growing any faster on a percentage basis. If the governments would help it would be even better - here is where an optimistic attitude could translate into investment and a quicker pace of advancement. And remember I'm looking at concentrated solar power in addition to solar panels, as well as passive solar heating and solar hot water. Add them all up and the energy supplies grow. I'm patient enough to let this boom continue over the next few years, and I also champion other things like wind, geothermal, fusion, conservation, etc.

Edited August 3, 2008 by scalbers

[SkepticLance]

scalbers

 

I would be very happy if solar achieves grid parity by 2012. As I said, solar has many advantages, and would be a great addition. Maybe I am just a cynical old reprobate, but I do not automatically believe promises. We have been let down too many times in the past.

[waitforufo]

IEEE Spectrum has in interesting article on solar power which in part includes a discussion on grid parity.

 

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6464

 

I would tend to believe IEEE on this subject over others.

 

SkepticLance, I don't think it is bad that you are true to your handle, but perhaps you are a bit too pragmatic about solar power. Even if a few percent of grid power generation was from solar, it would be a significant contribution. Also, this seems to be one of the few topics that the all too common pessimists contributing to science forums can see a future with hope. Don't burst there small bubble. Perhaps it will grow

[scalbers]

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0815-solar.html

 

PG&E will build the world's largest solar power plant

 

California electricity producer PG&E Thursday announced a plan to build two giant solar photovoltaic power plants that will cover 12.5 square miles and have a peak generating capacity of 800 megawatts.

 

The plants would would the size of the largest photovoltaic installation presently in the United States, the 14 megawatt plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The proposed plants — expected to be completed in 2013 — will be located in San Luis Obispo County in central California. The 800 megawatts is 3.6 times the total capacity of photovoltaic installed in the U.S. in 2007 and equivalent to about 30 percent of worldwide installations for the year.

 

 

PG&E estimates the plants will deliver cumulatively 1.65 billion kilowatt-hours of renewable energy annually, or enough to power approximately 239,000 residential homes each year.

 

"These landmark agreements signal the arrival of utility-scale PV solar power that may be cost-competitive with solar thermal and wind energy," said Jack Keenan, chief operating officer and senior vice president for PG&E.

 

Over the past six years,PG&E has entered into contracts for more than 2,500 MW of solar power.

[iNow]

Nice article, scalbers.

 

 

Here's one I read today, not about solar, but about warming itself:

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93706882&ft=1&f=1001

 

Extreme temperatures around the world are likely to rise dramatically as a result of global warming, a new study finds. Some heavily populated parts of the world — including the American Midwest — could face heat waves in which the temperature soars above 120 degrees by the end of this century.

 

These extreme heat waves are likely to kill people and crops alike.

 

The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, found that extreme temperatures will rise two or three times faster than average temperatures. So in Europe, peak highs could go from a sweltering 100 degrees up to 110 or 115 degrees. There's even a chance the mercury could hit Sahara-style highs of 120 degrees.

 

<...>

 

But he says the story's different in India.

 

"There, it's not very easy for people to turn on the air conditioning or to pick up and move, just because they don't have as many resources," Greenstone said. "My preliminary research on India suggests that the impacts on mortality could be quite dramatic."

 

Horrible heat waves could lead to mass fatalities, he says. And agriculture is also likely to suffer more in places like India, where it is a large fraction of the economy. <more at

link

>

 

---

line[/hr]

 

Not sure if I've shared this yet, but here's a good assessment of the climate models that just came out:

 

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm

[JohnB]

Scalbers, I think your article points out the reason that there is an upper limit for solar generation. (As we currently do things.) Land area.

 

If 800MW takes 12.5 sq miles then my home state would need 1562.5 sq miles to equal our current generating capacity, around 10,000 MW.

 

Before anybody jumps and says "We never said solar is the whole answer" allow me to continue. Power generation is only part of the energy problem facing the planet, and less than half the problem at that. Losses in energy distribution is the real killer. We (Queensland) lose some 70% of generated power due to transmission losses.

 

These losses also preclude the sharing of power over long distances. We need a room temperature superconductor. It amazes me that people and .govs all over the world talk of spending trillions on alternative generation ideas and bugger all on distribution. I'm willing to bet that those involved in superconductor research have to beg for their grant money just like anyone else. This is insane.

 

Funding in this area should be in the hundreds of millions, not hundreds of thousands. The benefits of success are worth the costs. We would reduce the energy needs of the planet as we would no longer be generating power only to lose it in the lines.

 

It would allow viable long distance energy swapping between nations. (And solar could really come into it's own.)

 

Australia would not be hard pressed to find 500,000 sq miles that are of no use to man or beast, using Scalbers figures this could generate a staggering 32,000,000 MW that could be then sent anywhere on the planet. How many other similarly useless areas could be used for the same purpose?

 

Many years ago I saw a diagram of a way to link all the continents into a planetary grid based on a Bucky ball type pattern. IIRC it only used 7 long distance connections.

 

I would add that such a superconductor would allow the development of long range and powerful electric vehicles thus reducing pollution as well.

 

Any answer to energy problems must include national and international distribution as well or it is only a band aid solution. I firmly believe that we as a planet have the brain power in our phyicists, chemists and metallurgists to solve this if they are given more than adequate funding.

 

If we had such transmission lines, Queensland could shut down more than half of our coal fired power stations and still meet our energy needs for the forseeable future. Add in a desert full of solar panels and we can shut the lot down and so could other nations.

 

Just because I'm on the sceptic side in the AGW debate doesn't mean that I don't think burning coal for power isn't very smart or that shutting these polluting things down isn't a good idea.

 

My 3 cents. (Inflation, you know:-))

Edited August 23, 2008 by JohnB
typos

[SkepticLance]

To JohnB (or anyone) a question on distribution. Do you have a more general figure for distribution losses? Like percent loss for every 1000 km transmission?

 

But a point on energy need. Over the next decade or three we will be moving to using electricity for transport in a big way, as fuels become more costly. Electric cars, electric buses, electric trains with overhead power lines etc. There is a good chance that synthetic fuels will become common, and they will need BIG electric power input for manufacture. Add to this to the normal trend for more electric appliances per person, plus increasing population, and I suspect that the need for electricity will double within 20 years. Ditto the need for transmission capability.

[Edtharan]

If 800MW takes 12.5 sq miles then my home state would need 1562.5 sq miles to equal our current generating capacity, around 10,000 MW.

 

Before anybody jumps and says "We never said solar is the whole answer" allow me to continue. Power generation is only part of the energy problem facing the planet, and less than half the problem at that. Losses in energy distribution is the real killer. We (Queensland) lose some 70% of generated power due to transmission losses.

One of the advantages of solar is that it is far easier to use in micro generation This means that you can have much smaller generating plants scattered across the landscape. Not only that, because you don't need huge buildings to handle it, it also means that these solar power plants can co-exist with existing infrastructures.

 

For instance, if you think of the size of your roof (mine is flat, but it is likely yours is sloping so only really consider half your roof area). Now multiply that area by the number of houses (as a rough estimate) in Queensland. Does this exceed (or even just come close) to the area needed that you stated.

 

The other advantage of micro generation is that you can put these plants close to where they are needed. This means that the losses from transmission are greatly reduced (as it is the distance the electricity has to travel that incurs those losses).

 

These facts mean that your arguments against solar don't actually apply to it, unless we use a system that solar does not take advantage of what solar can offer but continues the problems that we are still struggling to overcome today.

 

We need a room temperature superconductor. It amazes me that people and .govs all over the world talk of spending trillions on alternative generation ideas and bugger all on distribution. I'm willing to bet that those involved in superconductor research have to beg for their grant money just like anyone else. This is insane.

no it isn't. We have no evidence that room temperature superconductors can actually exist. We have theories that take what we know about superconductors and tries to extrapolate from them and tell us how to make these room temperature super conductors, but theories in the past have failed to achieve room temperature superconductors.

 

Therefore any research into room temperature superconductors is really a gamble, and one with hidden odds. We think we have worked out the odds, but we have lots out in the past.

 

Yes. IF we could develop a room temperature superconductor, it would make a big difference. But the problem is that we don't know how to, and we don't know if it is actually possible to develop one.

 

So if we spent billions of dollars and decades trying to develop room temperature superconductors and at the end we found it was actually physically impossible, then all that money would be wasted and we would be out of time to even attempt to implement something else.

 

Room temperature superconductors area gamble, as with all the other research in power generation technologies. And the stakes are high: Our very way of life (no not Armageddon, but a lot of what we take for granted will be greatly effected).

 

We know that solar will not be a perfect solution, but we also know that even if it fails (ie be able to supply all out power needs), we will still have some measure of our current way of life. In other words, we know the odds and we known our stake in the gamble.

 

With Room temperature super conductors, we don't know the odds, and we are not exactly sure the size of the stake.

[SkepticLance]

When investing money for retirement, the main principle is to spread the risk. That is - do not put all your money into one investment. Invest in a range of possibilities, so that if some fail, the rest will do what is needed, and give you an overall gain.

 

The same must apply to researching new energy sources, and ways to generate electricity. Research many possibilities so that the ones that fail will not cause a disastrous shortfall in energy production. And of course, that is exactly what the world is doing. If solar fails, we have hot rock. If biofuels fail, we make synthetic fuel. If wave power fails, we try new generation nuclear. And so on.

 

It is nice to have enthusiasms. But probably not a good idea to invest all your enthusiasm in one line of development.

[Mr Skeptic]

About superconductors: a little known fact about superconductors is that the amount of current they can transmit is actually limited. The more current a wire carries, the larger a magnetic field it generates. When a superconductor is in a large enough magnetic field, its ability to superconduct breaks down. So when the superconductor carries too much current, the magnetic field it generates will prevent it from carrying more current. Also, most (all?) decent superconductors are incredibly brittle, which makes making wires out of them annoying.

 

Also, there has been some buzz lately about iron-based superconductors.

 

[...] Research many possibilities so that the ones that fail will not cause a disastrous shortfall in energy production. And of course, that is exactly what the world is doing. If solar fails, we have hot rock. If biofuels fail, we make synthetic fuel. If wave power fails, we try new generation nuclear. And so on.

 

It is nice to have enthusiasms. But probably not a good idea to invest all your enthusiasm in one line of development.

 

A very sound strategy. Funding research into multiple different energy production strategies will protect from underestimating the costs to develop one particular strategy. And developing multiple means of producing electricity means each can be used where it is more effective, and can cover for each other's weaknesses.

[scalbers]

I've been mentioning solar lately as it seems to be an energy source that has the potential to grow quite a bit. Public support for research and development may help accelerate the ongoing expansion, particularly if more people become aware of recent developments.

 

Speaking though of diversification, I'd like to see more funding on the ITER and DEMO fusion projects to accelerate their development as well.

Edited August 23, 2008 by scalbers