Energy Probe is Canada’s pioneer in the field of alternative energy. In 1978, its guide to renewable energy technologies, The Renewable Energy Handbook, became a bestseller, and in 1980 it completed Ecology House in downtown Toronto, Canada’s first working demonstration of the practicality of a building that employed solar energy and water and energy conservation.
For alternative energy technologies to be sustainable, they must be economically viable. For this reason, Energy Probe has always opposed subsidies to all energy forms, including the renewable and non-renewable technologies, such as cogeneration. Energy Probe rightly determined in the mid-1980s that cogeneration would be immediately viable when allowed to compete (as soon happened in the UK with the power system’s privatization in 1990) and that the renewables would remain uncompetitive for decades to come. Subsidizing renewables, Energy Probe believes, tends to delay the day that they become viable.
Below are links to our recent stories on alternative energy sources:
Energy Probe 
Nuclear is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal. It is very hard to believe that its energy pay back ratio could even be compared to the difuse nature of the renewables – unless one uses the light water reactor, which has got to be the most dangerous and inefficeint reactor known to man. Now, I’m not against RE, because even still, it has positive energy payback. However, such massive amounts needed to do any good must cost much more than nuclear’s energy density.
Try liquid fluoride thorium reactors… It has been demonstrated at ORNL some 50 years ago and thus only basic materials and operational research is needed to make it…
The world’s best and cheapest unlimited clean energy source.
It does not need high pressures, no water (and its tendency to turn into hydrogen) and no grid dependency. Imagine what could happen when a solar flare knocks out the grid that the silly LWR’s all around the world depends on.
Thus LFTR and its type IS the solution to GW and fossil fueled depletion.
You’re 100% right but good luck ever convincing the majority of people that nuclear is the best option. Nuclear is “too scary” and no matter how rational the argument is that you present, you’re not going to lead them to reason away their fear.