You seem to be forgetting that nuclear power to create waste. While nuclear power is the best solution to meet energy needs for now, it's better to continue support for other energy research. I believe A group of nations is investing some 50 billion dollars on a research plant in France on fusion reactors, this will provide no nuclear waste, and nothing to complain about. I also have to disagree with your views on ethanol energy that waste a lot of the soil and so very destructive to the environment.

My post was an effort at irony. I am not convinced that any of the four "solutions" noted in the original post is necessarily better than the problem of (or caused by) higher CO2 emissions. Certainly, no one that I am aware of has done any analysis comparing the four options against fossil fuels, yet our leaders are convinced that they are environmentally superior. And that was the point I was attempting to make. In other words, I am not sure we have any disagreement.

Yes, I am new to this blog, so I wasn't aware of your views. So it was somewhat difficult for me to distinguish what your positions were on each of the energy sources. That's why I wanted the comment removed. I am convinced that fusion reactors will be the best solutions for our energy needs, but that will take some years before the research will finish. Before then, I do believe that while fission reactors produce waste, it might still be the best energy source. That's why I didn't know that you were being ironic listing other sources after nuclear. Scientists are convinced that the nuclear waste from fission reactors can be maintained above ground and managed properly, but I guess people are not willing to take any small risk associated with the wastes.

Anyways, this is a very interesting site! and sorry for the misunderstandings.

You forgot about solar power. All we have to do is cover the state of Nevada with high efficiency photovoltaic panels, use the state of New Mexico to put the backup batteries, and we can provide electricity for the entire US! I always thought the US flag looked a little better with 48 stars anyways.

you suck monkey shit you boob lick

Well if your point is that we need to be careful that the medicine is not worse than the disease, I agree.

But climate change is happening and it will have very serious impacts. If you're suggesting that we're better ignoring it, I don't think that's sensible either.

I would think some of the solutions lie in a combination of more efficient uses of current fuels (which could be encouraged by better transport planning and fuel pricing), some biofuels (probably not from corn - but, for example, Brazil is doing well with ethanol from sugar cane), sensitively located windpower and solar.

It's easy to find problems with proposed solutions but the mining or drilling of fossil fuels and coal power stations (for example) have pretty massive local environmental effects too.

So what would you propose?

The climate is always changing. Certainly, there are large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere now than almost ever before. The debate is still going on, but it's better to play it safe I guess. Unless safe means hurting too many human lives with loss of jobs. That's why fossil fuel is still a good option right now, with nuclear IMO being the better option. The other sources either cannot meet the energy demands or it's more damaging to the environment. There are other GHGs besides CO2 that might be even more damaging to our atmosphere, but no one really cares about those because the quantity is small, even though those small quanities might have larger impacts. Ethanol is a bad idea because in order to actually meet the demand, you must produce a lot of sugar cane, corn or whatever, and the methods that the farmers are using right now destroys the good soil that we have, and will be barren after awhile if they continue doing what they do. There are more environmental friendly means of farming, like machines that will plant seeds without curshing the soil as it rolls along it, but those machines are expensive. So it is easy to find problems with the proposed solutions because the problems from those solutions are more harmful to the environment.

I like to ask the simple question: If, as many of the "delusiacs" [a word I stole from author Reed Arvin] claim, all use of coal and oil for fuel is inherently evil, then the only moral thing to do is to wholly stop using these evil fuels. Today. The question, then, is, "Are you ready for the consequences?"

Well, of course they aren't. They are just posturing. So then we have to deal with what we have - and make the best of it. We are not running out of oil or coal or natural gas - though the price for extraction and even for refining may grow. But were there REALLY that many fossils that far under the deep ocean, or did at least some of the oil (or even coal) get made in other ways?

In the long run, I too like fusion -- but hydrogen if we can unleash it is maybe the best of all possible fuels. THe sun runs on it -- and is it not amazing that the simplest of the elements may be the most difficult to tame?

I agree with what you've said, but thought you might want to know that nuclear fusion is about releasing the power of the hydrogen atom. That's why people call the fusion bomb, hydrogen bomb. Although, some people confuse hydrogen bomb with hydrogen fuel cells, which is far from similar.