Actually, I wasn't saying that. I was and am saying keep trying to find solutions, but right now, the underlying problems are not simple engineering issues. I was talking about the grid in particular, as there is no potential alt energy solution that can solve the base-load problem without a completely new grid, as they all currently require some high degree of centralization. Furthermore, this grid has to be built on as-yet unidentified technology (that is where I was directing my “simple engineering issues…basic, unresolved design and physics problems” comment).

So, as there is of now no new baseload alt energy sources that can be counted on, until there is we have to do our planning on technologies that either do exist, or are in the final stages of industrial-scale deployability.

In short – keep trying to identify new and better energy sources, improve the existing technologies, and reduce consumption via non-productivity impacting methods.

In the meantime, plan for current and projected power needs with provable sources, and add new technologies when they are feasible (not perfect; I think we are too risk-adverse as a country these days, but that is a different post)

Here's some planning for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/business/19wi…

You might also want to track back to this thread:
http://themoderatevoice.com/science/energy/oil/…

That will provide you with even more information about planning (among other things). If you want even more evidence of planning, track back through this thread:
http://themoderatevoice.com/science/energy/gas-…

Finally,you might want to additionally read one of DLS's links that also supports the baseload fallacy as it pertains to wind (http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_The…)

And what you say about the limitations of the existing grid is true of whatever you try to put on it, not just renewables. Said in another way, the existing grid sucks. For the last 20 years or so it's been held together with scotch tape and bailing wire. Things have to change no matter what.

You say, “There is more than just simple engineering issues to deal with; there are basic, unresolved design and physics problems.” I'm not exactly sure in what context you mean that, but in general I disagree. Not in every context maybe, but in most. Perfection isn't required, only good enough (except nuclear maybe — you want to be very sure a new nuclear plant design will work). And a lot of technologies are good enough — most with much more potential to get even better, and cheaper. But don't take my word for it. The information in many of the links I've provided on this and other threads support what I've said and contradict you. So if you want to save whatever credibility you desire, perhaps you would be so kind as to be more clear about what you mean and document it. Because you're a little thin in that regard.

I hear the kind of stuff you're spouting all the time though — that is to say the “we're not there yet” argument, with the implicit corollary of “and until we are we shouldn't do anything other than what we're already doing.” To that I reply… Yes..We..Are, and Yes..We..Should. That thinking is what got us into our present predicament in the first place.

Alt energy is great, but you can't just sweep the main problem under the rug. I am all for alternative energy, but wishing and hoping that solutions will come along is not planning.

There is more than just simple engineering issues to deal with; there are basic, unresolved design and physics problems. Even with our current mainly geographically dispersed baseload environments, the attempts to put them into a fail-safe national grid have not been particularly effective. Further centralization of power generation will only strain that infrastructure more, and I don't mean capacity, but fault tolerance.

People continue to go off on tangents. Try to deflect the argument. Try to spin it out of control and in the end we end up right back to where we were. Nothing to replace oil.

The Democrats/Barak Obama's “Punish America” Tour is coming to a city near you.

Walk to work. Thats their new campaign slogan.

The terrifying fear of the left is that if we drill it might be successful. Otherwise if they are convinced it is not going to be successful then why oppose drilling?

Show those oil companies a thing or two and let them drill anywhere they want…………even on the White House Lawn.

Then you can prove to us what the experts keep claiming. It wont matter. Well if it wont matter then why oppose exploration??

Maybe someday. And if you're curious, yes, I yield “the floor” now. Others' turn!

I'm afraid you're wrong once more. It is a compromise and a good one that makes sense for present and future US energy policy, working on behalf of alternative as well as the currently-superior conventional sources of energy.

I would argue that it is the key issue to generating electricity using vast areas where little or no population is, but making it available where the people are.

(The same is going to be true someday with water supplies in the southern USA but this is still largely a future concern.)

The sun does not shine all the time and the wind does not blow all the time, which is why they are not suitable to provide base load sources. Wind might work if a large enough area were developed to catch enough wind someday but the area required would be incredibly large.

“Nuclear plants have to be taken off-line for repairs in all-or-none fashion. In most cases that means you have to find another way to supply about a GW of power while it's down.”

That's one (additional) argument in favor of the new, modular plant designs, which can be simpler and often smaller.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/f…

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analy…

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/n…

But to return to solar and wind, those must-reads do illustrate that more work on solar as well as wind can pay off. Here's another writeup that does what that solar article you linked us to does, addresses the “solar base load” problem. (The article you gave us a link to included an attack on the “base load” concept itself.)

http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_The…

http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Baseload…

Background (conventional description of the issues)

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14….

“Then there's the biggest, fattest, lowest-hanging fruit of all: energy efficiency.”

I don't want Uncle Sam or my state government requiring all kinds of labels and worse, bombarding me with nagging commercials about conservation or about paying attention to efficiency when buying or using things. I can think immediately (and have thought many times) about something that can permit down-rating of wattage of high-intensity lamps on roadways where there are NEMA heads, including those suspended in their very ugly but utilitarian manner above Michigan intersections, which could cost as little as $20 each in bulk purchases and improve roadway lighting while offering substantial state-wide savings,

[photos show improvement in lighting and ability to use lower wattage lamp]

http://www.mediasoft.net/macdowell/oldandnew.htm

but this shouldn't be mandated. (Nor going to LED and other new lighting that is more efficient, someday.)

Your 'comprimise' is an anti-compromise, exactly as I described.
You can't talk about a topic by redefing it or replacing it.

Austin, you really, really need to read this, in the case of wind, and this in the case of solar. I can point you to others, but those are must-reads. They are both “systems” approaches, meaning they analyze all of the variables including transmission. And transmission is definitely key to both. That's what transforms wind and solar from “intermittent” sources to dependable sources. Assuming a widely distributed transmission network, wind is a very reliable baseload source. Likewise assuming a widely distributed transmission network, solar thermal (with heat storage) is even better because it possesses baseload AND load-following characteristics.

And what's this about geothermal not being baseload? What are you, kidding? It's as good as hydro. Sometimes even better, because it's not subject to droughts. Moreover, geothermal plants can be taken off-line for repairs in partial fashion. So can wind and solar. Nuclear plants have to be taken off-line for repairs in all-or-none fashion. In most cases that means you have to find another way to supply about a GW of power while it's down.

One could effectively argue that at least in the short term (meaning less than 20 years or so), wind, solar thermal, and/or geothermal are not very viable options everywhere in the country. With an HVDC-backed national grid they could be, but it would take a long time to build even assuming it were seriously contemplated (and that doesn't appear to be the case). Given that, they are more viable in the west and midwest. The atlantic coast has considerable wind resources, particularly off shore, but off shore wind is considerably more expensive than on shore. And solar thermal and geothermal resources are even more limited in those areas. So in those cases other sources have to be found, e.g., nuclear. I have nothing against nuclear — except the cost. I sincerely believe that wind, solar, and geothermal, including the necessary transmission grid, makes more sense in the west and midwest than any other option. Plus, they can be built and become available in a fraction of the time that a nuclear plant can.

Then there's the biggest, fattest, lowest-hanging fruit of all: energy efficiency. And for whatever reason, it's something McCain hardly ever mentions, much less addresses meaningfully.

And nuclear? There are no give-aways, not by McCain and in any reasonable compromise, which begins with treating energy reasonably rather than in an unrealistic or political rather than practical manner.

Alternative energy is in the future and far from the here and now and largely belongs in a compromise as the subject of research and development at this time.

Nuclear and hydropower are the cleanest but as Chris has reminded us, nuclear plants, even the great new designs, still are too expensive to construct to be cost-competitive at this time, and the best hydro sites are pretty much all taken (and any compromise that would preserve ANWR would also preserve Wild and Scenic River sites that would provide some of the few remaining really good hydro sites). Short term R&D would involve synthetic fuels from coal as well as from biomass, because any near-to-medium-term substitute needs to be practical as well as economical, meaning with as little change of equipment or costs as necessary. Longer-term we're looking at electric motor vehicles, most likely, and fuel cells to power either motor vehicles or provide off-grid power for households. Solar is a distant dream, still; some research into that is worthwhile, though more R&D in wind is justified at this time, along with compromising on tax incentives or other mechanisms of government interventionism that can support or promote wind power where it makes sense. Fusion research remains desireable but is a long-term less-important thing whereas nuclear fuel reprocessing is something that can be done right from the start. (Even consuming spare bomb fuel in reactors.)

There is your compromise.

It's bait for swing voters.

Put the reactors underground, even if crazier environmentalists howl about this.

I agree to that.”

Yep. Especially to the no-drilling no-thought and the no-nukes no-thought.

Well, yes, beginning with reprocessing, which we should be doing and which Carter ended because it looked nicey-nicey in a pee-cee sort of way.

Far beyond the scope merely of McCain's energy policy, your statement is most applicable as good advice to Obama voters about _all_issues_ with _Obama_.

I agree to that.

But the other side of the coin has the question: What happens if you bury alt. energy under an avalanche of fossil fuel initiatives?
Everyone talks about compromise, and I'm looking for one that is truly a compormise and not a give-away to the entrenched oil and coal industries.
What is new is at am initial disadvantage, in the markets, until it can build up volume and acceptance. What may appear to be 'fair' at first glance, may be an initiative killer in the long run, particularly because of the entrenched political connections.

The minute I see a truly fair ompromise, I'll jump on it.
In McCain's plan, green energy is only a throw away line, while nuclear and drilllig receive a full breasted endorsement. That's not a compromise, that's a sop in an effort to stifle criticism..