You would think that Mr. Bush never thought of this? 

You can criticize him of rmany things but Eenrgy policy si not one of them.  He has had a comprehensive Energy Plan since the beginning. He has been worjking to bring Nuclear back for one LAST generation, and to eventually transition to Fusion when it’s ready.

That’s why  the Energy acts of 20001 and 2005 he sponsored, and even 2007, all helped lay the foundation for long term energy independence.

Do You want renewables ?  He said build as many boondoggles as you wish.  When it isn’t anywhere near enough,  build clean Nuclear and eventually really clean Fusion, too.

Nuclear would not come back until the NRDC fanatics can be neutralized in their “delay and bankrupt them with nonsense lawsuits strategies”.

Mr. Bush wanted the nuclear plants themselves to be standardized and abe improved to be more passive and safer.  Mr. Bush has cajoled the industry to designing  GEN III+ plants with their own Billions, that are 3 orders of magnitude provably safer, than what is running well today. 

They  are much more passive and no longer require operators to do something even if its wrong when beset by alarms going off everwhere.   All can run unattended for 72 hours as the NRC wanted, while safely shutting themselves down without requiring the need for powered pumps, valves, or human operator interaction.

Mr. Bush has recreated an international consortia to pay for and build the last experimental Fusion reactor, that the Democrats killed, before building the first elctricity generating demonstration Fusion Plant.  Recall that the first Nuclear fission demonstration plant was built in 1957, and a scant dozen years later, 50-100 nuclear plants were being built.

The Laws have been reformed to make the capital expenditures for Plants predictable.  Nuclear electricity is cheaper, and has been since before the first energy crsisis going back to the 1960s.  It only got expensive when the legal stalling went on, and on, and on, for no other purpose but to run up the costs and exaust the Utility managements.

The  proof is that the plant builders are now offering to the Utilities, Fixed Price contracts on their NRC pre-certified “Standard Design” plants.  They would never consent to do that in the old days.  

And that is even when the watchdogs, the  NRC has gotten really tough as a junkyard dog.  No more one off custom plants unless you want to really pay for it.

Nuclear is in renaisance with 34 plants in the pipeline to join the US grid in 2015-2020.  Those 34, equal the output almost 70 of the 100 odd plants running today. When they come online they  will increase nuclear electric generation share by almost two thirds.  In turn that will allow us to close down the  oldest and dirtiest coal plants running today, making our air much cleaner.

That schedule is just in time to power the floods of electric autos that Mr. Bush’s US Advanced Battery Consortium have pushed to theh edge of development reality, starting back in 2000.  Li-Ion went from Lab curisosity to power for autos  thanks to the  USABC push.

Only in short term drilling poilicy did Mr. Bush fail to get+ the obstructionanists in Congress to go along.   He said we need oil supplies until the 2020s, to keep demand and supply in balance. 

They said Conserve!   Now YOU are conserving at $4.00+ a gallon.  Aren’t you happy the NRDC asses won, the short term political battle?

Surely SOMEBODY has a plan for how we are going to handle the added electrical demand…if not this will be messy!

I consider myself to be a pretty strong environmentalist. All of these energy sources have traditionally produced huge negative environmental impacts and/or risks. This is because the industries involved have, as is only human nature, tried to minimize the costs of “mitigating” these impacts and risks. People are sick and tired of same.

If they try to expand with their traditional making of messes, I will be in the front rank to fight them. I am just saying that, at some point, whether it’s $100, $200, or $500/barrel, there is enough money available to change the paradigm and do whatever it takes to not make the messes. And/or clean them up when the process is complete.

A good example is here in California at the Tejon Ranch. This huge remaining area of open space has been the scene of a brewing showdown battle between the developers and the environmental community for years. Recently, the developers have begun working cooperatively with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, and many others.

They have recently announced a historic agreement on how much of the land is to be developed, and how much is to be preserved and enhanced as habitat. This avoids PR wars and litigation, potentially costing millions of dollars and years of delay. The developers clearly made a business decision that this was the most profitable course for them. The environmental community made a similar decision that it was most effective for them to give up a little in order to get a lot.

If and when oil, coal, nuclear, tar sand, oil shale, et al, corporations are able to find ways to spend some of their billions of dollars in profits to make the natural world a better place, rather than worse, as a result of their projects, they will be amazed at how much cooperation they will find.

I am a committed member of the NRDC, the toughest and most effective environmental advocacy group on the planet, IMHO. I think that you would be amazed at how willing and effective they are at sitting down and trying to hammer out mutually beneficial solutions to environmental challenges with developers, industry and governmental organizations at all levels. It ain’t cheap, but at $128/barrel it is quite likely very cost effective.

Having said all that, I agree with you wholeheartedly that conservation is far and away the most environmentally friendly and cost effective solution.

The American people would go along with those methods you listed. The problem is that the environmentalist extremest would fight drilling and nuclear until doomsday. Many of us would classify ourselves these days as somewhat of an environmentalist. But we are not in the same league as the people who would oppose any and everything except alternative (and some would oppose some types of that) methods and conservation. Our best bet is to conserve. The only problem is that most of us don’t waste a lot of energy beyond getting to and from work. As conservation methods expand and improve, we will see more of us doing it.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/bmw-developing.html#more

http://www.metricmind.com/ac_honda/main2.htm

Shouldn’t someone be hitting up the employees at EEStore for some info? Ve have Vays too make you talk!