Nuclear power does have a waste issue and I do not have a solution for it. I do not know enough about all of the issues. Obviously we need to get to some solution. Which is worse greenhouse gas emissions or stored nuclear waste? If you think nuclear waste is worse then you will have a hard time meeting our future energy needs without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Being from California and working in the power industry (and I do not work in the solar power industry) I love the idea of solar. Financing R&D I feel would be well worth the investment. Solar currently comes at a pretty high cost so anything to reduce that cost or increase the efficiency is great.

The reason I posted here in the first place was because when I read the information on Repower America.org I found it to be completely unrealistic. In all of their plans they reduce consumption by 28%. They also increase wind power by a minimum of 23%, which means 23 times the current number of wind turbines, what is that like 2300% increase. They hold nuclear and hydro at current percentages. If this is a plan it is a plan for failure.

Also, with nuclear, the issues seems to be how to handle the radioactive waste. Any thoughts about this?

What’s your feeling about financing some of the new color related solar ideas out there? Anna

PS Steve, thanks so much for continuing this discussion! I find it fascinating.

First, I would not tell you lies and deceive you into believing that we can get to 100% renewable energy in the US in 10 years. It just is not possible, even if you don’t include electric cars.

I would be completely honest with you. I would tell you that in reality the power system can handle some amount of wind power but not 20%, WHY because it is far less reliable, and costs more due to needing alternate capacity available when the wind is not blowing. I would expand solar, far more then wind power, realizing that it is also very costly due to not being available when the sun goes down.

I would be honest with you about meeting our energy needs. If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then we MUST talk about the real alternatives. Nuclear, while HATED by environmental groups has ZERO greenhouse gas emissions. Hydro power, ZERO greenhouse gas emissions. These both get left off the table because environmental groups HATE them. The reality is if we want to limit carbon emissions and not have a third world power system we would have to expand both of these sources. That my friend is the truth. Environmental groups tell you that coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power are BAD. What is the alternative, StoneAge?

If AL Gore really believed what he is telling us, Nuclear and Hydro power would be his number one priority. If he truely believes that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions in short order, then these 2 sources of power would be key. That is the main reason I do not believe Al Gore. A Convenient Lie, to make him big bucks.

So who is paying for all this? The taxpayer? Each individual? Maybe Al Gore should pay for this. I cannot afford to buy 2 new electric cars, replace all my appliances, and make my home more energy efficient, while also paying massive amounts of taxes to pay for the complete rebuild of the trillion dollar US electric grid, Trillions of dollars for unreliable wind power and the retirement of 1000′s of GW’s of coal and natural gas generation, all so Al Gore can fatten up his wallet.

Just say NO to drugs and Al Gore’s complete lies.