This site examines the concept of the "100% Renewables" approach to addressing climate change and seeks the truth about whether this limited set of technologies can provide for all of humanity's energy needs. We are also seeking to understand the motives of those insisting on just renewables—at humanity's peril.  While there's been incredible success deploying renewables around the world, global emissions have not declined at all and, instead, are still rising! Fossil fuels are being burned at increasing rates. Yet, we have extremely limited time to reduce and eliminate emissions.

So, when the evidence clearly indicates that just adding more renewables doesn't eliminate demand for fossil fuels, it raises lots of questions and concerns. This blog is our effort to confront these issues. We hope to bring together the facts and hypotheses and seek answers to why certain environmental groups and their leaders continue to insist on excluding nuclear power—the one type of carbon-free energy that produces firm power that has been proven to decrease demand for fossil fuels. We believe we cannot afford to exclude any viable clean energy solution as we fight to save our planet and battle against the continued proliferation of fossil fuel in global energy systems.

Thank you for stopping by and taking the time to learn more. Perhaps like us, you are puzzled by the "100% Renewables" mantra and perplexed about the fairly hardline position taken by so many prominent climate "leaders" on a matter of life and death. Just to be clear, what "100% Renewables" means to these hardliners, is to oppose the use of nuclear power and also, usually, the use of carbon capture and sequestration. In some instances, they even oppose the use of large hydro. These positions may have reasons behind them but they handicap our ability to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels and/or reduce their emissions.

Which means that these environmental leaders take this position regardless of the fact that it makes our chances of addressing the climate crisis in the time almost impossible. It also almost guarantees that we will have highly unreliable power systems that will fail under even normal weather variations, and potentially experience catastrophic failure under extreme weather conditions. This is a world-class case of the "perfect" being the enemy of the "good."  These leaders should know better.

So why is it that environmental leaders are being so cavalier and picky about which clean energy solutions to use? We simply don't have the luxury to say no to any viable source of clean energy or alternative solutions. Especially because we're losing this fight against global emissions badly. How can such leaders be willing to risk the loss of coral reefs and other vulnerable ecosystems as well as growing costs of loss of life and property?  We think there is more going on with them and want to know what that is and expose it to the light of day.  Please join us and help by contributing insights that you may have about the twelve issues that we've identified.