The
blog
www.getpluggedin.com
has
this
posting
and
people
can
leave
questions
or
comments
there.
Where
does
energy
production
stand
today?
There
is
a
push
for
“renewable,
carbon
neutral”
power.
Generally
that
refers
only
to
solar
and
wind.
With
a
booming
economy
and
a
government
that
will
advance
the
“save
us
from
global
warming”
philosophy,
large
industrial
wind
turbines
began
going
up
across
the
land.
Not
everyone
considered
these
“green”.
Plus,
the
cost
benefit
ratio
was
probably
very
high.
Arguments
for
the
turbines
included
“we’ve
used
them
for
years
(yes,
but
mostly
in
mechanical
applications
and
not
large
scale);
they
worked
in
Denmark
(totally
different
country
which
may
not
be
as
in
love
with
them
as
we
were
told),
etc.
When
the
US
economy
declined,
cost-effectiveness,
job
generation,
subsidies
for
turbines
were
all
called
into
question.
Plus,
people
started
to
learn
more
about
the
manufacturing
processes
(some
quite
toxic)
and
the
number
of
turbines
and
amount
of
land
required
to
create
enough
electricity
to
keep
switches
“instant
on”.
Solar
had
much
the
same
problems.
Land
usage
was
enormous
and
the
amount
of
electricity
produced
quite
small.
Solar
was
more
predictable
and
quiet,
making
it
less
intrusive.
Hydro
power
requires
moving
water—there
are
obvious
limits
to
this.
Currently,
there
is
talk
of
combining
wind
and
hydro,
using
turbines
to
move
water
uphill
when
the
wind
is
very
strong
or
the
grid
is
not
able
to
accept
the
electricity,
then
running
the
water
down
to
a
second
reservoir
through
a
hydroelectric
plant.
This
means
we
require
two
forms
of
renewable
energy,
twice
the
cost
perhaps
and
large
land
areas
without
multiple
use.
This
is
quite
new
so
time
will
tell
if
it
is
worth
$2.2
billion
dollars
for
three
such
facilities
(one
estimate
I
found).
Geothermal
does
not
get
as
much
attention
as
other
sources.
It
is
used
but
limited
by
the
location
of
the
geothermal
resources
if
used
on
an
industrial
scale.
Other
ideas
include
using
ethanol,
biomass,
methane
from
landfills—all
have
unique
benefits
and
shortcomings.
None
are
carbon
neutral.
Coal
was
the
dominant
fuel
for
producing
electricity
for
a
long
time--abundant
(in
spite
of
claims
to
the
contrary)
and
cheap.
We
have
large
quantities
of
coal
in
the
US
so
we
would
not
be
dependent
on
another
country
for
the
fuel.
The
downside
is
coal
is
very
dirty.
Besides
the
air
pollution,
there
are
the
tons
(literally)
of
ash
left
from
the
coal
burning.
Efforts
have
been
made
to
make
coal
burn
cleaner
by
adding
scrubbers,
but
so
far
coal
remains
very
dirty.
Natural
gas
burns
cleaner
than
coal,
but
still
produces
CO2.
Huge
quantities
of
natural
gas
have
been
discovered
in
the
last
few
years
in
America
and
there
is
research
into
whether
natural
gas
can
be
replenished
through
the
use
of
microbes
from
coal
bed
methane
water.
If
we
can
“regrow”
the
natural
gas,
the
problem
of
renewable
no
longer
exists
if
production
can
meet
demand.
Natural
gas
can
also
be
used
to
power
automobiles,
after
modifications
to
the
vehicle.
There
exists
resistance
to
drilling
for
gas
in
many
areas
and
others
argue
that
since
natural
gas
is
not
carbon
free,
it
will
not
save
the
planet.
Then
there’s
nuclear
power—efficient,
carbon
neutral
at
least
as
much
as
turbines
and
solar
panels.
Sadly,
at
the
end
of
WWII,
nuclear
“power”
translated
to
“nuclear
bomb”
and
thus
instilled
a
terror
in
much
of
humanity
over
radioactive
materials.
Protests
of
nuclear
power
were
common.
Three
Mile
Island,
Chernobyl,
Japan’s
earthquake
all
fueled
the
fear
and
the
media
fanned
the
flames.
After
the
earthquake
in
Japan,
there
has
been
a
huge
backlash
once
again.
One
must
occasionally
wonder
if
global
warming
would
have
even
been
an
issue
had
we
built
power
plants
and
not
a
bomb.
This
is
not
to
say
nuclear
is
not
without
danger,
but
without
the
public
panic
and
relentless
pounding
by
the
media
about
the
dangers,
a
different
world
might
exist.
And
thus
we
arrive
at
risk
assessment.
How
much
danger
are
we
willing
to
tolerate
to
keep
those
lights
on?
This
is
very
difficult
to
evaluate
in
the
US,
since
your
lights
ARE
on.
Perhaps
a
few
weeks
in
the
Philippines
with
their
“brownouts”
(blackouts,
actually)
would
help.
If
we
saw
what
a
future
without
adequate
electricity
looks
like,
would
our
tolerance
level
change?
Would
we
ask
questions
and
do
research
of
the
efficiency
and
cost
of
various
types
of
electrical
power
generation?
Would
we
lobby
for
more
facts
and
figures
and
less
politics?
The
climate
minister
of
England
recently
told
the
British
citizens
that
the
days
of
getting
electricity
on
demand
were
soon
to
be
over.
Do
we
wait
for
that
announcement
here
or
do
we
start
now
asking
the
hard
questions?
This
blog
is
a
start.
It’s
time
to
figure
out
our
attitudes
and
where
we
want
to
be.
If
we
need
to
follow
a
different
path,
let’s
get
started
before
the
decision
is
made
for
us
or
before
the
wrong
path
is
chosen.