This is just going to push more electricity towards coal-fired generation. People will realize soon enough that wind and solar just simply aren't feasible. Thermodynamics and economics are a b****... and they are ruthlessly efficient in driving the WORLD's electricity generation profile towards coal. This is just another step towards it... Not that it's a bad answer -- coal-fired generation contributes an almost meaningless % of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere -- certainly not enough to change anything. Waxman's notion of reducing greenhouse gasses by 80% by 2050 would require that we return to Plymouth Rock-era emissions levels. Anyone think that's going to happen? Yeah, me either. The Obama voters might believe it though, since they saw Gore's movie and are gullible.
We are not building another coal plant, Al Gore said so. People are just gonna have to turn off the friggin' lights.
^ Most of the drivel about green energy is from a small group of californians with nothing better to do.
I've seen ostriches with a better understanding of their situation than Congress. The radioactive waste is already here, it's been out there in steel barrels for 20 years. If not Yucca Mountain then what's the alternative and the timetable and the costs? I guess it will become the new national wine cellar to maintain our strategic reserves of California Merlot.
That makes no sense. I think you mean Yuca on the table. And Sam's right, in one and only one way: if you send me letters with that sort of nonsense, I will line my cage with them.
Oh, and China, a country investing more into the alternative energy industry than any other on Earth. But please pull up that nice blanket of California Stupidians. You're half right, which is something.
^ In a way that actually makes sense. Supplement coal with alternative energy where possible. Just dont go crazy about it. The chinese aren't going for the "zero emissions" white elephant.
It's only possible if the US makes its grid less reliant upon On Demand power generation. Wind technology is pretty well established. It can be as cheap as coal in terms of $/Kwh. The current downside is storage and a lengthy waiting list for wind turbines. Plus the brain dead nimby crowd who claims the turbines are ugly and drive down the values of their homes. Environmentalists they are not. Removing subsidies and letting the market reflect the true price of power would do wind and solar a big favor. Nuclear not so much because of the sunk costs by the taxpayer to subsidize hundred billion dollar endeavors and it's impacts from cradle to grave (no way private industry will eat all or most of that.) Coal and fossil fuels will still be relevant in the process because costs are already sunk not only in making the plants but also the grid it was designed to power. It doesn't mean that we have to rely solely upon that supply limited tech or allow the public eat its negative externalities.
The citation states that the subsidies aren't needed since the program has already spurred significant interest.
You're kidding, right? Wind is getting huge subsidies and still isn't economic. That's the Obama administration's biggest failure -- instead of investing in technology to improve existing generation sources in an effort to lower prices, they think the solution is just to raise the price of the lower cost energy sources up to where wind/solar/biomass can compete. How does that make any sense whatsoever? Obviously it doesn't -- and it will cripple the US economy. Unfortunately, American voters are so stupid that they don't even begin to understand the issues. ...and all of this is predicated on the fake belief that CO2 contributes to global warming -- and that we have any control over global warming. Only a fool with a social agenda would believe that. Honestly, the facts just don't support it. Water vapor equals something like 90%+ of greenhouse gasses. I guess we should get rid of water next. Global warming is truly the biggest fraud in the history of politics.
You've got to have a backup too. Texas is the #1 wind producer in the states (freeking weird to say that) but when the winds died down in west texas a few years ago, natural gas had to pick up the slack. It's not a small or avoidable issue. Wind yes, solar not so much. It's getting there but solar is still hella expensive. If we want to push domestic sources of power, wind and coal are our best bets, IMO. The problem is the coal technology was never updated. When GHG emission regulation is put forward, there is going to be some significant pain as plants try to adapt. A better approach might be to subsidize new coal gasification plants. The irony in all of this is that the anti-nuclear crowd post 3-mile island pushed us into 30 years of coal and more coal. Now they're screaming to go back to nukes. I was listening to a presentation given by the CEO of Anadarko Energy on last Monday. He's convinced we can maneuver into an all-natural gas economy; including automobiles. It was quite a speech. If anyone wants to hear more details I'd be happy to expound a bit.
It didn't say that the solar and wind subsidies had succeeded yet in spurring significant private development. The purpose of having a nuclear subsidy has outlived its usefulness according to your citation it didn't say the same regarding other energy sources.
