One of the key takeaways behind these findings suggests that the transition to renewable energy should not include nuclear energy as a crutch. As put by Andy Stirling, Professor of Science and Technology Policy at the University of Sussex Business School, said: "This paper exposes the irrationality of arguing for nuclear investment based on a 'do everything' argument. Our findings show not only that nuclear investments around the world tend on balance to be less effective than renewable investments at carbon emissions mitigation, but that tensions between these two strategies can further erode the effectiveness of averting climate disruption."

A transaction first announced in November 2019, Sunpower has now split into two companies; SunPower as the solar and storage company, and Maxeon Solar Technologies. This deal will allow SunPower to focus on its core business, which is providing residential and commercial solar/storage while Maxeon will continue to produce the high quality panels that Sunpower is known for. The idea is to allow SunPower to focus on its strengths and simplifying their responsibilities. Since the companies founding in 1985, SunPower has survived the ups and downs of the solar industry. This split intends to streamline business and boost future financial outlook for both companies.

The first round of hearings regarding Duke's $2.3 Billion plan to upgrade their grid have concluded, revealing their approach to fund such a project. Duke is attempting to use something called "def feral accounting", which makes it possible for the utility "to recover those in a future rate case without listing those costs as expenses on it is quarterly financial reports ... The key is that deferral accounting lets a utility charge its customers for the financing costs for projects, ensuring that the utility does not have to pay the interest on the money it has to borrow to build them." This is nothing new, as one-time, sudden expenditures for utilities such as construction of generation plants are funded. However, in this case, many believe this is an inappropriate use of the funding method. There are a few concerns from major stakeholders, such as ratepayers, commissioners, and regulators.

Despite the environmental benefits we get from using the wind to generate renewable energy, there was always a somewhat depressing side effect that left environmentalists slightly torn when advocating for wind power. The trade off was that turbines worldwide killed an estimated 300,000 birds per year. The macabre reality is that this is, well, worth it to most people, who point towards the expectation that using turbines saves ecosystems, and thus, not just birds but many animals. However, this blemish on wind-powers otherwise outstanding record got researchers thinking about creative solutions to decrease the mortality rate.

With a dynamic industry such as the energy sector, constant changes in technology, efficiency, and manufacturing dictate how a market responds and plans for the future. It makes sense; why ride a horse and buggy when you can get an automobile? Why use oil lamps when you can use LED bulbs? Many are now asking a similar question: Why go solar now when the future could bring a new generation of more advanced Photovoltaic systems? It's a fair question, especially when you look at the trajectory in solar advancements in recent decades. In 1954, the first silicon solar panel was created, which had an approximate efficiency of 6%. It took until 2010 before the average commercial panel produced at around 12%. Today, panel efficiencies are approximately 17-19%, while many panels are even higher in the low 20%-range. This begs the question (or a host of questions really): how efficient can panels get? How long will they take to get there? How will costs change over this transition? A recent article from BBC tries to provide some clarity in an constantly changing field, and attempts to tackle these hard hitting questions.