| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Renewable sources 9.5% to US total electric gen. in '06 = 385.0bn kWh |
| 2007-06-22 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #3 It's clear the US could have a crash programme of thorium-based reactors, pebble-bed and other types of fission systems. And. It could invest a tiny pittance of what it's spending on fission and ITER and TOKOMAK based fusion systems and listen to this guy. Dr Robert Bussard If he's right, then all bets are off. All of them... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2007-06-22 22:13 |
| #2 So called renewables (stupid name) are mostly hydroelectricity. Passive solar shows real potential in hot cloudless areas, but has a long way to go. The unsolvable problem with wind is that you can never rely on it for base load. There must be additional (non-renewable) capacity as back up, which makes it very expensive. OP, DOE projections out to 2030 show coal increasing and renewables decreasing as percentages. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-06-22 20:04 |
| #1 And just what percentage of USABLE renewable energy sources does that constitute? I'd be willing to bet that it accounts for more than 50% of what is economically feasible to use. "Renewable" energy resources are usually expensive, and quite a few are destructive. The US needs to return to nuclear energy to replace much of the coal-fired plants currently in use. Trying to tie us to wind, tide, or other "renewable" sources won't work - they're just not capable enough or reliable enough, and they're hellishly expensive in comparison. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-06-22 19:51 |