I am a strong believer in renewable energy technology and truly believe that all the planets energy requirements can be met through sustainable, renewable energies that don't contribute to global warming and damage important ecosystems. I believe eventually we will get to that point. But I am worried about global warming and how quickly its negative impacts will unfold. I recently read a TIME magazine that reported that according to a number of important sources, global warming is happening much faster and more strongly than anyone had expected. And that we may only have a few decades to fix the problem. If this is the case, I am skeptical that alternative energy will be enough in the short term to displace fossil fuel energy. I tend to think that the resources necessary, not to mention the collective willpower, won't materialize in time to set up the renewable energy plants needed to displace the fossil fuel plants in time to avert the worst of global warming. I dislike nuclear energy the way it currently is, even though significant improvements have been made in nuclear plant technology. But I fear that it may be a necessary stopgag measure to avert the catastrophe that global warming can bring upon us. If nuclear ends up being the lesser of two evils, I hope the nuclear industry applies the newest of technologies to reduce and eliminate many of the environmental drawbacks of the older technology.

Unfortunately houston, we have a problem — nuclear isn't even a stopgap. It takes 9-10 years just to commission a new plant. Imagine how strong a renewable energy economy you can build in that time, if, as Gorby suggests, you divert the vast amounts of subsidies that nuclear (and coal) receives into solar, wind, wave, biomass, etc.

Global warming isn't so much as happening faster than expected, we're simply responding slower than required to provide an emission reduction. And remember, the longer we take to act, the greater will be the needed change.

Energy efficiency and demand reduction - sustainable consumption. That's surely the only quick way to reduce our need for energy.

Unfortunately this always seems to be the last option mentioned. Probably because it involves some sacrifices instead of a magic technical bullet.

Warren, I assume you are talking about the US when refering to the 9-10 years commissioning time. However, my concerns don't rest primarily on the US, even though it is the biggest greenhouse polluter. While I think US emmissions from power plants need to be reduced, I imagine that power plant emmissions will start to reduce from their current levels. Even though Bush is not doing anything significant to reduce emmissions, many state, local and city governments throughout the US are taking proactive steps to implement the Kyoto protocol and reduce greenhouses gases as fast as possible. I have even seen important industry players voluntary include themselves in the carbon trading market and push Bush for mandated emissions regulations. So while the US definitely needs to reduce its emissions, I see moves in that direction happening (without the need for nuclear). However, the emissions from the transportation sector definitely much improvement. There are way too many cars in the US and a disproportionate amount of those are SUVs, pickups, and other large vehicles.

My main concern when considering the building of new energy plants lies in China and India, two countries with huge energy needs that seems to increase exponentially. I know that both countries are seriously increasing carbon emissions and both are burning increasing quantities of fossil fuels, especially China with carbon. They also are both seriously considering installing a large number of nuclear power plants to reduce oil dependence from abroad and reduce their carbon emissions. These countries, especially China which has the most ambitious nuclear plans, can have plants up and running in very short times. China can do this for the simple reason that it is a dictatorship and bureaucracy can be sidestepped, as often is. India is more democratic and bureaucratic prone, but money often tends to grease the bureaucratic wheels there.

As for putting all the public funding the nuclear industry gets into alternative energy, I do believe it would be able to establish a significant amount of renewable energy; however, renewable energy is distributed while nuclear is concentrated. To get the same amount of energy from a wind farm as could be gotten from a nuclear energy plant would require a very large number of wind turbines spread out over a large area. Most likely it would require several large wind farms for every nuclear plant. When building a nuclear plant, you only have to worry about one location and its rules, regulations, environment, community, citizens. When building three wind farms, you have to worry about three areas. And you have to build three transmission systems, three access systems, three communications systems, three of every thing. This systems are a minor thing, but they take time to establish. Three times as many resources for these minor systems as for one nuclear plant.

My main concern remains that I think large quantities of energy (power plants) will need to be established quickly to displace the fossil fuel that is being and is predicted to be used in the coming decades. I want this to be from alternative energy, but I simply don't see it happening fast enough.

Houston, it's great that you have such concerns. Grappling with the issues is the first step to finding creative solutions. You raise some worthy conundrums. I wish I had equally good answers.

It's hard to ask India, China and others to forgo opportunities we've already enjoyed. Yet if the West were to embrace a renewable energy lifestyle, then we could export that, along with all those air conditioning and plasma TVs. Developing countries want we have. Let's give 'em solar, energy efficiency, compact fluoros, etc as well.

It is precisely the notion that renewable energy sources, such as solar, are diffuse rather than concentrated, that appeals to many proponents. Is it something like 15% of energy is lost in transmission from source to application? Having the generation close to the use means you need to create less to begin with. It can also put the power directly in the hands of the people who use it. But as MY notes in the other comments, the solutions are not merely technical but cultural. Industry chews vast quantities of electricity only because we demand of it so much that is trivial. (Do we really need to play major sports events under lights at night, for example?) It is our level of consumption that is at the core of the problem. Less playstations, less powerplants. Simple really.

I'm reminded of that story of the monkey that gets trapped by putting its hand in the container and grabbing a handful of rice. When trying to remove his hand the monkey discovers it's now too big to come back out of the opening. But rather than let go of his prize and be free, the monkey's greed forces it to retain what it has a grasped, and it is soon captured. (And we pontificate like we are a smarter species. You do have to wonder.)

Nuclear power makes sense for mobile platforms or places where there aren't already energy sources. Submarines, aircraft carriers, spacecraft more than a couple AU from the sun, and extraterrestrial communities.

On Earth there are so many energy sources that nuclear, with its high implementation costs, isn't necessary. We've got wind, wave, solar, tidal, geothermal, hydroelectric, all by virtue of the fact we live on a planet with a thick atmosphere, an active core, and in a close orbit to a G-type star. Why would we need nuclear power?

As much as I have always loved renewable energy (my sixth grade science project was a new design for easy to install interlocking solar panels), I tend to agree with houston that it we will need nuclear to augment energy supplies if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we try to ramp up the use of any single for of renewable energy immediately, the costs of the inputs to fabricate the energy capacity will skyrocket. Copper will go up in price for transmision lines, and generators for wind/hydro turbines. The best renewable source that would alleviate the need for additional transmission lines is localized solar, and such photovoltaic panels are still almost entirely made from silicon, which is already in high demand and somewhat short supply, as well as energy intensive to produce. Of course, solar water heating would be huge reduction in energy use immediately, and should probably be more heavily subsidized. There are new technologies for flexible photovoltaics , none of which seem to be mature yet, and will require massive expansion of any current production capacity to have any impact. Also, just as other generation methods have transmission losses, solar electric generation also has the loss of coversion from DC to AC, which is necessary to use most modern appliances.

I don't mean to make it all doom and gloom. I still think a highly distributed mostly alternative energy grid is the way to go, with each building having osme means to provide a portion of its own energy. In fact, I am in the process of interviewing for a job that will pay more and will reduce my 110 mile/day commute to 10 miles/day. I plan on using the extra money to pay off debt and save for a full solar electric and water heating installation.

Excellent conference in NYC about peak oil, alternative energy, permaculture, local food and better public transport. We are seriously focused on action and practical solutions, not simply alarmism and hand-wringing.

See world-famous speakers such as James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, Derrick Jensen, author of The Culture of Make Believe, Mike Ruppert, administrator of From the Wilderness, and Matt Savinar, administrator of lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. Only $35 a day, with special discounts available!

Go to http://www.energysolutionsconference.org/ for more information.

The 'Powers that Be' within the USofA will ignore anything Gorbachev says for two reasons: 1) "we can do it better!; and 2)"he is a commie!"

The USofA always thinks it can do things better. Our policies do not allow us to learn from *our* mistakes, let alone *others'* mistakes.

We have to give everything the 'ole college try' because, well, we think we can 'just do it'.

We also have a short memory, or selective memory, perhaps a bit of both.

We also hate commies.

Warren, nice try in your attempt to rewrite the history of Gorbachev in that first sentence. Should I give you the Walter Duranty Prize? I'll never forget that Gorbachev took 3 weeks to come out and admit that Chernobyl happened, and you shouldn't either.