I was thinking about the claim that I discount the feasibility of alternate energy sources such as ethanol, wind, and solar power, because I'm so biased by what pays the bills. If that is true, wouldn't the facts start to contradict me?
For example, ethonal has been highly subsidized by the government for years. But, with crude oil prices going up from the 10-20 dollar range in the 90s to the 50-60 dollar range this year, why isn't ethonol now cheaper than gasoline? (I actually think I know the answer to this, and it's very ironic). If wind and solar energy are such good alternatives, why aren't they now fiscally competitive, with natural gas prices going from $2.00 a thousand cubic feet to $12.00 a thousand cubic feet?, and oil prices rising as shown above? If I were just thinking about the oil patch, I'd be part of the no nuke lobby. Nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuels for large scale additions to our electricity capacity (the best hydro locations have already been utilized). My opinon is that extensive use of nuclear power is the only option for increasing world power use without a corresponding increase in CO2 emmissions. If solar power could provide electricity at a cost competitive rate, wouldn't some country some place use them without subsidies, while charging people less for electricity than the cost using natural gas and coal fired plants? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
