Nuclear power and wind/solar are the two main contenders for a fossil fuel free energy future. My previous blog post focused on the problems with wind/solar. It now seems that nuclear power is also in serious trouble. Earlier this year (2017) as I covered in this post, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy due to cost overruns on their AP1000 nuclear reactors. Now the other shoe has dropped with the cancellation of two AP1000 projects as covered by this article in climate news network and IEEE Spectrum. Other new reactor projects around the world are also in trouble. These articles make the point that the nascent nuclear revival based on improved designs is petering out. New nuclear designs for the future also seem to be in trouble as discussed in this article in climate news network.

Nuclear power has always had significant political opposition, but the engineering complexity now seems to be a more significant problem.

With the growing awareness of the limits of wind/solar and the imminent demise of nuclear power, there is a need to try new approaches like StratoSolar. As I have repeatedly stated over the years, StratoSolar viability is quick and cheap to demonstrate. Its claim to be a complete replacement for fossil fuels is based on solid and well proven technologies. Its not based on magical power, perpetual motion or unproven basic science research.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the leading contenders of wind/solar and nuclear are proving more and more problematic as their deployments increasingly expose their weaknesses. Its time to examine alternative options like StratoSolar

​By Edmund Kelly

A persistent theme on this blog has been that the practical limits of intermittent alternative energy sources like wind and solar would have to be broadly accepted before realistic alternatives (like Stratosolar) that can solve the problems will get a hearing. A series of recent publications have focused on the viability of wind and solar.

Mark Jacobsen’s 100% renewables paper as an example of the naivete of alternative energy researchers has been mentioned several times. Unfortunately, his research has been enthusiastically embraced by advocates for renewables and he has even testified as an expert before congress. However the plot has thickened. Recently, Mark Jacobson’s optimistic 100% alternative energy modelling has been challenged by a paper authored by many respected energy researchers with a more practical bent.  
The IEEE spectrum article  provides a good overview with links to the original Jacobson paper and the rebuttal paper. This rebuttal paper prompted a debate which hopefully raised awareness in a broader audience. Joe Rohm, a committed environmentalist, jumped in to back up Jacobson.  Schellenberger, a fan of nuclear power backed the rebuttal.

A recent article in New Scientist by Michael Le Page points out that renewables are not succeeding in replacing fossil fuels. Gains from wind and solar have been offset by losses from nuclear.

A paper from Jan Petter Hansen at the University of Bergen in Norway shows that at projected rates of growth for PV and Wind, resource modelling predicts they will top out in 2030 at a small fraction of what is needed to replace fossil fuels.

A key point here is these publications represent a debate among those who all agree on the threat of global warming and the need to eliminate fossil fuels. The papers represent a growing awareness of the problems with current wind and solar as a viable, complete replacement for fossil fuels. Hopefully this will create a more fertile ground for the evaluation of alternatives like Stratosolar that can realistically solve the problems of current solar energy and can be a complete, economically viable replacement for fossil fuels.
​
By Edmund Kelly