On Apr 22, 3:42*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
Since this is a perennial favorite topic here--"Where we gonna git our
energy from?"--I thought it apropos to post this news flash:

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...d=ajl3fRv9AdDI

The lede:

* *The U.S. may never need to build new nuclear or coal-fired power
* *plants because renewable energy and improved efficiency can meet future
* *power demand, the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said.

To all those red-meat,
gotta-build-more-nukes-and-greenhouse-gas-spewing-coal-plants types here
(we know who you are), keep in mind: this isn't some granola-eating,
tree-hugging enviro-meddler[1] talking, but the head of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.

Talk amongst yourselves.

[1] That phrase courtesy of the big enviro-meddler (and monkey-wrencher)
hisself, Ed Abbey.

--
Save the Planet
Kill Yourself

- motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/)


Manufacturing will flow to the countries that can produce the most and
cheapest electricity, period. China is building a coal plant every
few months (of course the world excludes them from Co2 rules because
they are "poor"). We wont need a lot of power simply because we wont
be making very many things is the admin's unsaid implication. A
country cannot be a powerful manufacturer without making a lot of
electricity. I guess electric (essentially coal/nuclear) powered cars
are also out of the question. If every household had to re-charge a
pair of Chevy Volt's for 8 hours every night it will make our seasonal
AC usage look like a pittance. We will regret the day we said no to
nuclear investments now, as that is the basis of all this electric car
talk. If I were running GM and I heard this, I would stop further
investment in the Chevy Volt today, until the admin assured me
electricity will be both abundant and cheap in 10 years.