...and to a larger extent, the mainstream environmentalist movement. Here's an article on CNN.com, with one author being the founder of Earth Day and the other I can't identify (no bio provided for either): http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/opinion/hayes-denman-solar-power/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7 This article - and this is reflective of the movement itself - is fraudulent. The fraud is in the lie of omission on the power production statistics, which then drives the wrong conclusions. Here's a graph of power production by source in the US, both historical (through 2012) and projected future: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/images/figure_13es-lg.png More specific data here: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#generation First and second spreadsheets -- note, "other renewables" such as solar get their own spreadsheet because they are too small to be shown in the main spreadsheet. These sources show that from 2000 to 2012, the share of renewable power - mostly hydroelectric - went from 9% to 12% while nuclear was flat at 19% and natural gas power went from 16%-30%. Solar's share of that is currently 0.3%. Projections for the next 25 years have natural gas rising further, to 35% and renewables reaching 16%. In fact, price fluctuations in natural gas have resulted in usage fluctuations, but over the past 5 years natural gas has added an average of 46,000 GWH a year. That's right, natural gas has added more than 3x as much power as solar produces. Our total usage has remained nearly flat for 8 years, as has our nuclear usage (the number of reactors dropped, but uptime increased, thus power production stayed the same). Solar is but a footnote (wind power is a far bigger share of "other renewables") and virtually all of the motion has been decreasing coal and increasing natural gas. So: Nuclear is dropping (by any significant fraction)? That's a lie. Solar is replacing it? That's a lie. Solar is at a dawn of a "solar age"? That's nonsense, at least looking at its history/stats. Planned nuclear plants are being cancelled because of solar? That's a lie (it's natural gas). Don't mention natural gas at all? Lie of omission. It gets worse. What if you actually do start reducing nuclear power? Can/does solar take its place? http://theenergycollective.com/robe...s-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning And: http://www.spiegel.de/international...-german-brown-coal-power-output-a-942216.html So when you actually shutter your nuclear power, what you get is almost exclusively fossil fuels replacing it. Not solar. Regardless of any lofty goals, I cannot support a movement based largely on fraud.