If we are going to move toward wind and solar as our primary energy
sources, massive efforts for energy conservation and efficiency (in all
aspects of our economy and lifestyles) would seem to be necessary.
Conservation is our most eco-friendly source of power.
Unfortunately, a quick look at the political tea leaves me with the
impression we're headed for a heavy dependence nuclear power. It's an
industrialized source of huge amounts of power with no carbon emissions.
Viola -- problem "solved." (Why worry about radioactive emissions and
nuclear waste now when we can worry about it even more in 50 years?)
Here's what was given to the nuclear industry when Energy Policy Act of
2005 was signed into law:
* $3 billion in research subsidies.
* More than $3 billion in construction subsidies for new nuclear
power plants.
* Nearly $6 billion in operating tax credits.
* More than $1 billion in subsidies to decommission old plants.
* A 20-year extension of liability caps for accidents at nuclear
plants.
* Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new power plants.
These stats came from the following interesting and somewhat depressing
story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16272910/
-Geoff Poole
La Follette, Doug J - SOS wrote:
> My best guess, which I have been suggesting for 30 years, is Hydrogen made
> from wind and other solar sources;
> and a reduced population.
>
> **************************************************
>
>
> In the recent discussion of biofuels, there seems to be a consensus that
> producing ethanol from corn has serious adverse consequences both ecological
> and economic. However I have not seen anyone address the broader question of
> what alternatives we have in the long run. Fossil fuels will eventually run
> out - oil in a century or so at most, coal in several centuries - and while
> there may be some wonderous new technology to fill the gap, we cannot count
> on that. I suspect that combustible fuels will always be with us, and I
> wonder what they will be.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
>
