To be fair, you are overlooking:
1.) Nuclear
2.) Wind
3.) Solar*
and with regard to transmission loss, don't forget that home solar
power generators are already becoming practical, it wouldn't surprise
me to see them in widespread use within 10 years.
*see
http://www.abengoasolar.com/sites/solar/es/nuestros_proyectos/plataforma_solucar/index.html
for an example of what is currently possible with Solar power
generation on a large scale.
Nuclear is not clean, nor is it particularly safe. The new power plants
are more efficient than old, and don't produce as much plutonium [if
any], but at both ends of the life cycle, it's a very expensive, dirty
and dangerous way to generate energy. Mining uranium is dangerous to
miners and neighbors. Nuclear waste takes thousands of years to lose
radioactivity. Transporting radioactive materials is dangerous in many
ways. It's also one of the most expensive means of generating
electicity, once subsidies are removed.
Nuclear fusion is a good way of generating electricity. The sun does
that for us. Go solar. Use wind power, wave power. Until then, steel
engines can be replaced with ceramic engines. Every new home and
building in the United States can have photovoltaic systems on the roof;
retrofits will be subsidized with the savings from not subsidizing
nuclear, coal, petro. Our solar house paid for itself almost fifteen
years ago. We hardly care about rising energy costs for heating.
Maybe a better car is in the works, too. Energy efficiency improvements
are more realistic. Fully computerized cars are still a pipe dream, but
the Mercedes "boxfish" concept car that gets 70 mpg is a start.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
