Of course start-up costs are high for new nuke plants. And, I imagine that a ton of taxpayer dollars was invested a while ago in nuclear energy. Yet, France is seeing some long-term payoffs from those investments with their export of energy. Spain is not exporting anything at this point. Perhaps, they will in some time, but they are only able to provide 32% of their own needs, currently. They haven't even reached the ability to provide their own needs, let alone export excess for profit.

Wow, 32% of demand met by wind, even if that's just the peak number that is impressive.
The wind blows reliably in a lot of the US, and the power of the wind is awesome, and tidal power you can set your clock by.
Nuclear is good for base loads, where you just put out a steady load, but it doesn't react very quickly to changes in demand, you need gas turbines for that.

But a combination of nuclear, wind, tidal and gas turbine would seriously reduce greenhouse emissions.

Coal is abundant, but it creates a lot of CO2, and a coal plant puts out more radiation (from radium) than a nuclear plant, not to mention the mercury that goes up the stack. But the coal industry spends a lot on lobbyists, which is probably why alternatives don't get a lot of attention from the government.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

What France has accomplished proves that nuclear power can be made to work, which honestly was never in dispute (at least not by me). But all of the criticisms I leveled also apply to French nukes: they're expensive, they have a long construction lead-time, and there are environmental drawbacks.

They are still, granted, to be preferred over coal -- not in terms of cost or lead time (the opposite actually) but purely for environmental reasons. Coal is MUCH worse than nuclear in terms of environmental damage.

However, I would hope that it doesn't finally come down to a choice between those two. If it does, the choice is an easy one to make, but I believe there are better choices still.

You left out solar, which can be used a lot in some areas, especially in the Nevada and Arizona desert.

If we start these things now and also start looking towards biodiesel, we can help our environment, our farmers, our country, our economy and at the same time slowly wean ourselves off of imported energy.

Brazil, Germany and Spain have all made the investment for their future, why is the US lagging behind?

We are allowing energy corporations to control us.

DITTO--but you know what the enviromental wacko's will say about that too. The problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste? Right now, we're burying it somewhere in NM. Right now France is 80% nuke power.

In my state we're going more for wind. One city approx. 100k is 1/2 powered by wind, & our local utility supplier is starting to use wind.

They're is also technology today, that can make solar tiles for our roofs. They look like normal composite roofs, versus the big panels. It's unbelievable.

We have biodesel, the problem it doesn't fire up right in colder climates. Someone will figure it out sooner or later.

We need energy farms. Imagine farms with large windmills, growing wheat grass under the windmills. It's not to far off.

Part of the reason, is big oil buys out new innovation. Brazil has no need for oil, they have always used alternate energy means to fuel their autos.

The other part, is Americans can be very lazy. Especially our auto industry. It wasn't too long ago, an American auto would only get 75k miles before major problems started to appear. Japan sent us Toyota's capable of getting 200k with no problems. The American auto industry got it's butt kicked by Japan. It always take that whipping before they straighten up.

Watch, it will be a foreign car, that will get 100 mpg, that sell like hotcakes, before the American auto industry catches on.

Found a newer story which might be the future, if the claims are true.........

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A new patents pending solar energy system will soon make it possible to produce electricity at a wholesale cost of 5 cents per kWh (kilowatt hour). This price is competitive with the wholesale cost of producing electricity using fossil fuels and a fraction of the current cost of solar energy.

XCPV (Xtreme Concentrated Photovoltaics), a system that concentrates the equivalent of more than 1,600 times the sun’s energy onto the world’s most efficient solar cells, was announced today by SUNRGI, a solar energy system designer and developer, at the National Energy Marketers Association’s 11th Annual Global Energy Forum in Washington, DC. The technology will enable power companies, businesses, and residents to produce electricity from solar energy at a lower cost than ever before.

“Solar Power at 5 cents per kWh would be a world-changing breakthrough,” said Craig Goodman, president, National Energy Marketers Association. “It would make solar generation of electricity as affordable as generation from coal, natural gas or other non-renewable sources, without requiring a subsidy.”

“In a little more than a year we were able to develop and successfully test XCPV,” said Robert S. (Bob) Block, co-founder and SUNRGI principal. “We expect the SUNRGI system to become available for both on- and off-grid power applications, worldwide, in twelve to fifteen months.”

New Solar Energy System Makes It Possible to Produce Wholesale Electricity at a Cost Competitive with Fossil Fuels

USA Today

SUNRGI's "concentrated photovoltaic" system relies on lenses to magnify sunlight 2,000 times, letting it produce as much electricity as standard panels with a far smaller system. Craig Goodman, head of the National Energy Marketers Association, is expected to announce the breakthrough Tuesday.

Under its plans, which experts call promising but highly ambitious, SUNRGI would initially target utilities and large industrial and commercial customers. The company — founded by veterans of computer, digital design, aerospace and solar industries — would market to homes within three years.

Executives of the year-old company say they'll start producing solar panels by mid-2009 that will generate electricity for about 7 cents a kilowatt hour, including installation. That's roughly the price of cheap coal-fired electricity. "We're bringing the cost of solar electricity down to be competitive with" fossil fuels, says Bob Block, a co-founder of SUNRGI.



Start-up: Affordable solar power possible in a year - USATODAY.com

Well, if these claims are even close to being true and the technology isn't bought and shelved by the energy comapnies, then we are in business.

If the claims are false, then we will have to muddle through this, if the claims are true, then we just hit a homerun.

MIT story.....

Technology Review: Focusing on Solar's Cost

Most people will not admit that the energy companies have suppressed new technology.

Thank God there are still some people left in the world who are not fools.

Nice to have you here.

I am sure the energy companies will attempt to buy and shelve this new solar technology, if they haven't already tried to do so.

GM, until recently was the worlds largest auto seller. Why would they change when things still work? Thats just not good business. The mistake being made here is that people think they are in business to improve the environment, or save money for consumers, or save on gas. They arent. They are in it to make money. Once improving gas mileage starts making them money they will do it.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Judging from their massive operating losses and selling of assets over the past few years they still haven't discovered or won't admit that their market base wanted fuel efficiency and dependability in their vehicles while they were producing gas guzzler SUVs.

It is pleasant to see this thread leaning towards alternative fuels as a discussion point as more posters realize the US has no means of lowering gasoline pump prices or heating bills even if the last drops of oil are pumped out by every nation in the world including the US. Even six months ago there would have been posters demanding the government open all areas to oil drilling for 'energy independence'.

But, GM's market share has been in steady decline for years. It's not like there was a sudden drop in one year.

__________________
Whan they come, Ah sall staun mah grun
Staun mah grun, an be na afraid.
Thochts ae hame tak awa mah fear
Sweat an bluid hide mah veil o tears.

The US is a former energy exporter, where energy producers still hold significant influence over the political process.
Over the years, political decisions have favored the use of more energy.

While energy importing countries slap high taxes on motor fuels, encouraging mass transit use, small efficient vehicles, and efficient rail systems.
The US invested in a highway system that produced an infrastructure that relegated rail to bulk transport, and encouraged large automobiles.
While energy was cheap this made short term sense, US auto manufacturers made most of the large cars in the world, and didn't have to compete with small cars, light rail systems were replaced by bus lines, suburban living the most energy costly was promoted with massive subsidies for roads, urban centers were allowed to decay.
All of this benefited the oil companies.
The best energy policy America could institute would be to announce a gas tax that would increase annually over the next 10 years, starting at a low level so as not to shock the market, but letting every purchaser of a new vehicle know that cheap gas was never going to return, and that Grand Cherokee was going to cost $200 to fill up in ten years.
This would encourage energy conservation on a large scale, and the US demand for oil would lessen, this would cut into the oil comapnies bottom lines, and so you can expect the the usual suspects to denounce it.
But it's what every rational country in the world does that imports petroleum.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I am not a fan of taxes being imposed for the sole benefit of collectively changing behavior. The market should be able to do that on it's own. We see it already happening with hybrids, etc.