The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Britain now needs a Green New Deal

Times 7th March 2019  Britain needs a new economy that works for everyone and to move beyond the
old, broken systems and status quo that left many people behind. A green
new deal for the UK could give us just that. Climate change has muscled its
way back onto the political agenda. It was debated by MPs last week for the
first time in two years.

It seems that the momentum around Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey’s green new deal in the US, the
audacious climate march on Westminster by schoolchildren last month and
increasingly rising temperatures may have finally jolted our politicians
out of their climate stupor.

Four months ago, a group of experts on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered the news that
the world must halve carbon emissions in a little over a decade. Responding
would require an almighty push to green our economy – one that would touch
on every aspect of our lives.

Despite this stark warning from scientists,
the political establishment in Westminster barely flinched. There was no
commitment to redouble our efforts, no renewed urgency or call to action.

Instead, our politics continued to be consumed by Brexit. But the IPCC
report was a sobering wake-up call for many. A movement of activists in the
US, backed by a new generation of Democrats, including the Justice
Democrats, are reacting with the urgency needed. The green new deal – an
idea that came from organisations including the New Economics Foundation
(NEF) a decade ago – has emerged as a forceful response.

The idea is
simple: an unprecedented mobilisation of resources to achieve 100 per cent
renewable energy and eliminating greenhouse gas emissions within a decade
while creating millions of jobs and lifting living standards.


March 9, 2019 Posted by | ENERGY, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Atlanta Adopts Plan To Get Off Fossil Fuels And Nuclear By 2035

 • MAR 4, 2019 Atlanta will move to 100 percent “clean energy” by 2035, according to a resolution passed Monday by Atlanta City Council.

The goal is to have Atlanta use renewable energy, like wind and solar, and move away from power sources like coal, natural gas and nuclear.

In the plan approved by City Council, both the city of Atlanta and all residences and businesses in it would achieve that goal by 2035. That’s a change from the original proposal that set a deadline of 2025 for city operations, and 2035 for everything and everyone else.

The City Council had already voted unanimously to transition to what it calls clean energy, but Monday’s vote officially adopts the plan laying out how to do, and modifies those earlier dates. The resolution emphasizes finding ways to save energy and to make sure the switch is affordable.

March 7, 2019 Posted by | politics, renewable, USA | Leave a comment

Energy companies  should be planning for an industrial revolution driven by renewables

FT 4th March 2019 Nick Butler: A radical outlook needs strategy to match. Energy companies  should be planning for an industrial revolution driven by renewables. By
2035, renewables (solar and wind) will account for more than 50 per of
global power generation; electric vehicles will be the low-cost option for
car, van and small-truck drivers; oil demand will be declining; and gas
demand will have peaked.
Total energy demand will be plateauing despite a
growing global economy and a still-rising population. This is not, as you
might imagine, the latest summary of aspirations from a campaign group such
as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Nor is it an ambitious claim by one
of the renewables trade associations.
In fact, all the statements above are
drawn from a serious, considered projection produced by McKinsey, the
global management consultancy. The key is the falling cost of renewables,
which are set “to become cheaper than existing coal and gas in most regions
by 2030”, McKinsey says. That will encourage electrification across the
global economy, driving efficiency by replacing less productive forms of
Over the next 20-30 years the energy business is set for an
industrial revolution. The 20th-century energy economy, centred on coal and
oil, is giving way to something very different. And this transition has
ceased to be a matter for the distant future or something that can be
pushed off by industry leaders to the next generation of executives. The
complacency that smothers hard thinking in most of the major energy
companies is outdated. In an industry that thinks on a 20-year horizon,
2035 is within the immediate planning horizon.
The revolution is happening
now. Establishing a corporate strategy for producing value in very
different market conditions should be a priority for all in the sector. We
are entering the season when energy companies produce their annual reports
and hold their AGMs. Shareholders, large and small, would be well advised
to ask the managers and non-executives who work for them to set out in
detail their plans for the transition. I would be delighted to publish a
collection of the answers.

March 5, 2019 Posted by | 2 WORLD, renewable | Leave a comment

Wind and solar power in China – fast outstripping nuclear power

Wind & Solar In China Generating 2× Nuclear Today, Will Be 4× By 2030,  Clean Technica, February 21st, 2019 by Michael Barnard, Close to five years ago I published an assessment of nuclear scaling vs wind and solar scaling using China as the proving ground in the CleanTechnica article “Wind Energy Beats Nuclear & Carbon Capture For Global Warming Mitigation.” Today, the China example is more clear proof that wind and solar are the better choice for global warming mitigation than nuclear generation.China’s example is meaningful because it disproves several arguments of those in favor of increased nuclear generation. It’s not suffering under regulatory burden. It’s mostly been using the same nuclear technologies over and over again, not innovating with every new plant. It doesn’t have the same issues with social license due to the nature of the governmental system. The government has a lot of money. The inhibitors to widespread deployment are much lower.

Yet China has significantly slowed its nuclear generation rollout while accelerating its wind and solar rollout. Even strong industry insiders accept this, ones such as former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd, writing in Nuclear Engineering International in 2017.

Kidd estimates that China’s nuclear capacity will be around 100 gigawatts (GW) by 2030, well below previous expectations. Forecasts of 200 GW by 2030 were “not unusual only a few years ago,” he writes, but now seem “very wide of the mark.” And even the 100 GW estimate is stretching credulity ‒ nuclear capacity will be around 50 GW in 2020 and a doubling of that capacity by 2030 won’t happen if the current slow-down sets in.

Why is China slowing its nuclear rollout so drastically? Because nuclear is turning out to be more expensive than expected, new nuclear designs are proving to be uneconomical, and new wind and solar are dirt cheap and much easier to build.

Recently I published an assessment of the potential for wind and solar to massively exceed US CO2 reductions from nuclear in the CleanTechnica article US Could Achieve 3× As Much CO2 Savings With Renewables Instead Of Nuclear For Less Money. As usual, many of the comments from nuclear advocates related to the relative success of China, its speed of deployment compared to other jurisdictions and similar things.

In the discussion threads, I attempted to find apples-to-apples comparisons of China’s nuclear, solar, and wind generation compared, but none seemed to exist. As a result, I developed a model spanning 2010 to 2030, core years for all three programs. The charts are generated from the model

As I noted in 2014, the wind generation program had started much later than the nuclear program yet had been able to build much more capacity much more quickly, roughly six times more real wind energy capacity than nuclear per year over the years of 2010 through 2014. At the time, I used best of breed capacity factors for both wind and nuclear. One of the arguments against this at the time and on an ongoing basis is that China is curtailing wind and solar generation and achieving lower capacity factors. However, China is also experiencing less than best of breed capacity factors with its nuclear fleet, averaging 80% instead of 90%. This would have put the real world generation in the range of 3–4 times better for wind than for nuclear.

It doesn’t really matter as even with the diminished capacity factors for wind and solar currently experienced, they generated more than double the electricity generated by nuclear in 2018. Wind and solar each generated more electricity last year than nuclear did. By 2030, the ratio is very likely to be 4:1 in favor of wind and solar. And as Lazard has shown, wind and solar are much, much cheaper than nuclear, so China will be getting a lot more electricity at a lower cost point.

The chart above uses the capacity factors being experienced for wind, solar and nuclear to date in China and projects that all three will improve over the coming decade as operational efficiencies and grid connections improve………….

The quote from Kidd above suggests China might achieve only 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2030. That’s an overestimation according to the actual data. Nuclear reactors in construction today only bring Chinese nuclear capacity to 55 GW by 2023. Reactors scheduled to start construction in the next three years only bring that number to 66 GW. Reactors planned but not scheduled at all are only likely to see 88 GW by 2030. There is no planned capacity that achieves even 100 GW, never mind the heady days when 200 GW was thought to be possible.

And to be clear, even if 200 GW of nuclear had been realized, it still would have been less actual generation than wind and solar.

As I indicated in the recent article on US ability to decrease carbon load, nuclear is much lower carbon per MWh than either coal or gas generation, as well as being free of chemical and particulate pollution. However, wind is still quite a bit lower than nuclear in CO2e per MWh and solar is around the same. Given the speed of deployment per GW of capacity and the much lower price per MWh of wind and solar, nuclear as part of the mix doesn’t make a lot of sense in most places…………

February 23, 2019 Posted by | China, renewable | Leave a comment

Offshore wind could replace UK’s failed plans for new nuclear power

Orsted’s Hornsea Project Spawns Talk of Offshore Wind Replacing Nuclear, Greentech Media,  Danish developer Ørsted said its Hornsea One plant, which started delivering power to the grid this month, could help make up for a lack of planned nuclear generation in the U.K., as plans for new reactors have fallen by the wayside.When complete, Hornsea One will cover more than 157 square miles, making it bigger than the city of Denver, and have a peak capacity of 1.2 gigawatts, thanks to 174 turbines of at least 7 megawatts each.

It will be the biggest offshore wind plant on the planet, dwarfing the current leader, Walney Extension, which Ørsted opened last September with a capacity of 659 megawatts. Ørsted has plans for an even bigger project, the 1.8-gigawatt Hornsea Two plant, in U.K. waters………

Not just a U.K. debate

Given that the U.K. is relying on a largely untested reactor design for upcoming nuclear capacity, it is perhaps legitimate to ask if the reliability of new reactors will be significantly greater than those of gigawatt-scale offshore wind farms built at the same time.

Tom Dixon, wholesale team leader at U.K. consultancy Cornwall Insight, said: “New offshore wind farms being developed are now much more reliable than older offshore sites or their onshore counterparts.”

As a result, he said, “it is credible to say that the shortfall in new nuclear could be made up by offshore wind, with improving operational performance and relatively low costs for the technology, but additional flexibility would be required at times when output is low.”

It is not just the U.K. where offshore wind could potentially take over new nuclear’s mantle.

This month, in the wake of a partnership between Ørsted and Tokyo Electric Power Company, the analyst firm Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables questioned whether offshore wind could also be a cure for rising energy demand as new nuclear languishes in Japan.

“Rising costs and a lack of public confidence in Tepco’s ability as a nuclear operator have led the company to reconsider its future strategy,” said WoodMac senior analyst Robert Liew. “Tepco’s involvement in offshore wind is a crucial development.”

February 23, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Offshore wind power can replace UK’s failing nuclear industry

Can offshore energy replace a failing nuclear industry?   The Manufacturer, 12 Feb 2019 by Maddy White

The world’s largest offshore windfarm off the Yorkshire coast is to supply its first power to the UK electricity grid this week. Could it fill the gap left by a failing nuclear industry? When fully operational next year, Hornsea One will be the largest windfarm in the world. Its 174 Siemens 7MW turbines will generate enough electricity (1.2GW) to reportedly power more than one million homes.

The electricity generated by the turbines 120km off of the Yorkshire coast will pass through one of three offshore substations, before being carried by three high voltage subsea cables (245kV).

Danish developer Ørsted’s project propels the offshore wind power sector to a new scale; Hornsea One will cover 407 sqkm – almost eight-times the size of Norwich

Rapid growth for renewables

A clean and sustainable energy supply, and reducing the impacts of climate change has become priority for countries across the globe as part of the Paris Agreement. Climate change was also found, in the World Economic Forum’s global risks report, to be the biggest concern for business in 2019.

The UK committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels, but the question remains just how can this be achieved?

Offshore windfarms could help fulfill this. Additionally it could aid the low carbon power gap created as a result of Hitachi and Toshiba recently scrapping nuclear plant projects in Wales and Cumbria. Hitachi followed Toshiba’s move and halted work on the Welsh site earlier this year due to rising costs………

A failing nuclear industry

Last year renewable energy supplied a record 33% of the UK’s electricity, opposed to 19% from nuclear. As technology advances, renewable energy has become cheaper and the logical energy source.

Hinkley C, the nuclear power plant in Somerset is years behind schedule, and billions over budget. Alongside Hinkley, there were five other plants with nuclear proposals: Moorside (Cumbria), Wylfa (Wales), Oldbury (West Midlands), Bradwell (Essex) and Sizewell (Suffolk).

Three have been scrapped and two are yet to be approved. Of the eight sites currently generating power, the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) report that only one is due to be in use by 2030…….

The renewable sector is rapidly growing, its technology advancing and its costs decreasing, while nuclear remains an expensive and complex option that is becoming less appealing.

Can renewable energy be created on the same scale as nuclear? As nuclear power plants shut down and reach their operational expiry date, their contributions to the UK’s energy mix becomes increasingly irrelevant.

With projects like Hornsea One, Two and Three in the pipeline, it seems renewable energy has gained notable momentum and if executed well, could mean its perhaps only a matter of time until nuclear is phased out entirely.

February 18, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Chicago to go 100% renewable energy by 2035

February 16, 2019 Posted by | renewable, USA | Leave a comment

Energy efficiency, renewables, battery storage race ahead, as Bill Gates seeks tax-payer funds for chimera of “small modular nuclear reactors”

Consumers, businesses and utilities all win with this new distributed clean utility because renewables plus efficiency and batteries is available as a very resilient, near-zero carbon solution to providing power when and where it’s needed at the lowest cost. As these technologies continue to scale, they continue to experience steep cost declines, making the idea of a nuclear alternative vanishingly unrealistic.

Tens of billions of dollars have been spent developing different nuclear power plant designs, and even with enormous government subsidies and guarantees, corporations and utilities do not want to invest in nuclear power. Gates is a large investor in a nuclear firm, Terrapower, which hopes to build a prototype by 2030. If this target is achieved and a prototype is demonstrated by 2030, it could move toward commercial deployment in the 2030s. But we cannot afford to wait 15 or 20 years to scale very-low-carbon energy — and, fortunately, we don’t need to.

Renewable energy has more than doubled in the last decade to provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity, as much as nuclear.

Bill Gates’ quixotic quest to revive nuclear power,Greg Kats, February 7, 2019  Bill Gates has been lobbying Congress to secure federal financial support for nuclear power and for a nuclear company in which he is a large investor. This plea for federal largesse from a decabillionaire illustrates why further nuclear subsidies make no sense.

Nuclear power is already a heavily subsidized 60-year-old industry with over half a trillion dollars invested in several hundred large operating nuclear plants, including 99 in the United States. The cost of nuclear power has soared while the cost for other low-carbon power options — including wind, solar, batteries and energy efficiency — have plunged. This is why no U.S. utilities want to build nuclear plants unless they can get large additional subsidies.

Gates’ rationale for nuclear power can be summarized as follows: Given the reality and gravity of climate change, nuclear provides the only large-scale, very-low-carbon electricity source that cost-effectively can provide power at scale when needed. Other very-low-carbon options, such as wind and solar power, batteries and energy efficiency, cannot reliably provide power when needed — especially on hot summer afternoons when air conditioning loads are large.

This same argument was made by nuclear advocates 30 years ago and is even less true today. Continue reading

February 16, 2019 Posted by | renewable, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Scottish Energy Minister pressed to back closure of Hunterston B nuclear power plant in favour of renewable energy.

Dave Toke’s Blog 9th Feb 2019  Why Hunterston B Nuclear Powe Station should not be Restarted. Presentation made to Paul Wheelhouse,Minister for Energy Connectivity and the Islands by Dr Ian Fairlie and Dr David Toke.

In our view, Hunterston B nuclear power station needs to be
closed for safety reasons, but this should not be lamented because there is
presently a surplus of electricity generation in Scotland, and more is in
the pipeline.

Indeed there is so much renewable energy capacity being built
that Scottish electricity exports to England and Wales will continue to
increase, there will be no significant job losses in Scotland, and Scottish
energy security will be improved as Hunterston B’s operation results in
many Scottish wind farms being turned off at certain times and periods.

Ian Fairlie 9th Feb 2019

February 11, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’s under-reported analysis – renewables cheaper than new nuclear

Forbes 31st Jan 2019 , Under-reported analysis by the UK’s Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit
(ECIU) has shown that filling the gap left by the abandoned nuclear projects is not just feasible but better value. The government’s own National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) is minded to agree. Jonathan Marshall, head of analysis at the ECIU said: “In recent years Governmenthas quietly cut back its expectations for nuclear new-build, and that’s
looking more and more realistic as the price of renewable generation falls and the benefits of the flexible smart grid become more apparent.

Filling the nuclear gap with renewables would indeed require an increase in rollout, but one that is well within UK capabilities. “With enough focus on smart low-carbon energy, there’s no reason why Britain shouldn’t achieve all its energy objectives despite the cancellation of these nuclear stations,” added Marshall.

The ECIU analysis found that an additional 11.3GW of onshore wind, 5.7GW of offshore wind and 20.8GW of new solar capacity would be sufficient to fill the nuclear gap. Those figures are eminently achievable.

February 2, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

As a nuclear power project collapses, leading utility chief calls on UK government to increase targets for offshore wind energy

Forget nuclear woes and increase offshore wind targets, says boss of leading utility, Owjonline  25 Jan 2019 by David Foxwell The chief executive of one of the UK’s leading utility companies has called on the government to increase targets for offshore wind energy after plans for another nuclear power station were put on hold.SSE chief executive Alistair Phillips-Davies said the UK should be grateful that in offshore wind it has an ‘off the shelf’ answer to the problem of how the country can decarbonise energy cost-effectively while securing jobs and growth for the UK economy.

He is well-qualified to comment on energy policy in the country, having become chief executive of SSE in 2013 after working in the energy industry since 1997, when he joined Southern Electric.

“Later this year our Beatrice offshore windfarm, the largest project in Scotland, will be completed, and will begin exporting low carbon electricity to the grid,” he said. “It is one of many projects delivered to time and budget, which have helped bring the costs down substantially.

“Last year UK Energy Minister Claire Perry set out an ambition of an additional 1-2 GW of offshore wind per year during the 2020s taking the UK to a total of between 20 and 30 GW, meaning it could be the generation technology with the largest installed capacity in the UK.

“The sector has responded, and an Offshore Wind Sector Deal will be finalised later this year setting out the industry’s substantial commitments to the UK’s industrial strategy. The question now is whether 30 GW by 2030 is ambitious enough,” Mr Phillips-Davies said.

“In the coming months, the government will receive advice from the Committee on Climate Change on the implications of increasing its decarbonisation target from an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 to net zero.

“In light of the IPCC report last year, SSE supports the adoption of a net zero target, and the implications will be a need to go faster and harder on decarbonising electricity as the driver for decarbonising heat and transport.”

Mr Phillips-Davies went on to say, “With the news that Hitachi has pulled out of the Wylfa project, the new nuclear programme looks in real trouble and was due to come in well above the costs of offshore wind anyway…….,forget-nuclear-woes-and-increase-offshore-wind-targets-says-boss-of-leading-utility_56566.htm

January 26, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

For UK it;s now time to double down on wind and solar energy

January 24, 2019 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

France to replace Fessenheim nuclear plant with solar power project

EU approves France’s plan to replace nuclear plant with 300 MW of PV

The commission said the project selected through the tender will receive a premium tariff under a 20-year contract, and the tender’s budget is approximately €250 million.

“The aid will be granted by the French state and will contribute to the French and European objectives of energy efficiency and energy production from renewable sources, in line with the EU’s environmental objectives, with possible distortions of competition state support being reduced to a minimum,” the commission stated.

The tender was announced by the French government in April. In July, France’s Directorate General for Energy and Climate – part of the Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition – revealed details of the tendering scheme. According to that announcement, 200 MW of the tendered capacity will be for ground-mounted PV ranging in size from 500 kW up to 30 MW, with the remaining 100 MW accounted for by rooftop projects larger than 8 MW in scale.

Potential tariffs estimated

The tender was to be implemented in three phases, starting late last year and continuing in the middle and latter stages of this year, and was set to comprise three groups of installations: the ground-mounted PV; rooftop systems on buildings, greenhouses, carports or agricultural buildings with an output of 500 kW to 8 MW; and rooftops with a capacity of 100-500 kW.

Projects selected among the first two categories will be entitled to a premium feed-in tariff while installations of the third and smallest category will have access to a regular FIT. The premium tariff for ground-mounted PV is expected to be €50-70/MWh, and that for larger rooftops €70-100/MWh. Smaller rooftop projects are expected to be granted €80-110/MWh.

The 40-year-old Fessenheim nuclear site, in the Haut-Rhin department of Alsace in northeastern France, is set to be decommissioned by next year. The plant has seen more than one temporary shutdown due to safety issues. One of the most high-profile issues occurred in April 2014, when Reactor 1 was shuttered. The French Nuclear Safety Authority reported at the time that internal flooding in the non-nuclear part of the reactor had damaged safety electrical systems. After being repaired, the reactor was reconnected to the grid in May the same year.

January 22, 2019 Posted by | France, renewable | Leave a comment

Advantages of cross-border energy interconnection between UK and Europe

Green Alliance: UK must look to EU interconnection amid ‘crumbling’ nuclear plans, Business Green, Michael Holder, 21 January 2019

  “……… New analysis by the environmental think tank highlights myriad benefits for the UK from trade in electricity with European countries, but warns leaving the EU – particularly under a ‘no-deal’ scenario – threatens to undermine opportunities to enhance cross-border interconnection.

Published on Friday, the analysis shows that a mix of increased electricity interconnection with the EU in addition to installing more renewable energy in the UK would help to keep consumer bills down, boost access to and trade in clean power, and also maintain energy security, in the face of on-going struggles to deliver planned new nuclear projects.

It follows Japanese firm Hitachi’s announcement last week that it has halted construction of the £16bn Wylfa nuclear project in Wales after failing to agree a funding support package with the government. Hitachi’s plans for another nuclear plant in Gloucestershire have also been shelved.

Green Alliance said trading power across borders with Europe could help reduce energy sector emissions in the short term without the need to build more capacity, and that interconnection could also help provide instant back up power when needed at peak times.

It also highlights the economic benefits of interconnection, with cross border trading delivering a combined value of £700m to UK markets in 2017, according to Friday’s analysis.

However, leaving the EU without a deal could cost the UK as much as £2.2bn per year at the current level of interconnection, the think tank warned.

Similar research by climate think tank E3G recently argued the merits of the UK maintaining membership of the EU internal energy market in order to fully realise the cost and carbon benefits of electricity interconnection with Europe.

At present, the UK is one of the least interconnected countries in Europe, and it therefore has the most to gain from improving its power connections with the rest of the continent, argued Chaitanya Kumar, senior policy adviser at Green Alliance……….

In the short term, Kumar suggested boosting interconnection could help strengthen the case for scaling up UK renewables capacity, and that negotiating continued participation in the EU’s internal energy market should therefore be a crucial part of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, particularly as the government’s nuclear energy plans “are crumbling”.

“Instead of doubling down on subsidised, expensive nuclear, the government should now be focusing on building cheaper alternatives in more renewables and electricity interconnection with Europe,” he said. “The UK’s climate ambitions are not under any immediate threat from the failed nuclear plans, but that can only be guaranteed if the existing alternatives are scaled up.”

The report follows news last week that plans for a new interconnector between Peterhead and the Norway took a step forward, after securing planning permission from Aberdeenshire Council.

The North Connect transmission link would see a 415-mile cable link Peterhead with the Norwegian Coast, providing up to 1.4GW of power between the two countries from 2023.

A number of similar projects are in the pipeline, but experts fear their prospects are largely dependent on the UK securing a Brexit agreement with the EU that allows for streamlined energy trading – something that is not guaranteed under a ‘no deal’ scenario.

January 22, 2019 Posted by | ENERGY, EUROPE, politics international | Leave a comment

New York’s ‘Green New Deal’ for a zero carbon economy

Business Green 21st Jan 2019 New York has embraced the campaign for a ‘Green New Deal’, with Governor
Andrew Cuomo declaring last week he will launch a major programme to build
a zero carbon economy for the state.

New York’s Green New Deal was hailed
as a “nation-leading clean energy and jobs agenda” by the Governor’s
office, as it pledged to “aggressively put New York State on a path to
economy-wide carbon neutrality”. The plan includes doubling the state’s
solar capacity by 2025 and quadrupling its offshore wind capacity by 2035,
as part of a legally binding goal to deliver 100 per cent zero-carbon power
for the state by 2040.

January 22, 2019 Posted by | politics, renewable, USA | Leave a comment