In "This is War" below, Art Sammler offers an interesting point that I agree with, but gives no rationale (unlike other sections which he quotes): "We can finally act like adults about nuclear energy."

In fact, the real issue with nuclear energy is twofold. First, there are a bunch of ecological crazies (the same ones who would oppose a coal plant, or oil plant, or anything but their pet projects) who pop up to "protest" whenever a new nuclear energy plant is proposed. The end result is that getting a nuclear energy plant is a nightmare. This despite the fact that nuclear energy is the cleanest of all fuel-based energy technology.

The second problem - nuclear waste - is only a problem because of the Worst President in the History of the US, one Jimmy Carter. On April 7, 1977, Carter banned nuclear waste reprocessing in the US on the theory that it would "encourage" rogue nations like Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, China, Russia, and others not to reprocess fuel and thus stave off the threat of nuclear arms falling into their hands. Whoops! Score one for Clueless Carter.

The end result is that instead of a responsible nuclear energy program, the US has a limping one, and the crazies searching for so-called "renewable" energy resources have been going gonzo, Al Gore among them. The problem is that every one of their so-called "renewable" resources either has a significant drawback, reliability issues, or just doesn't work.

#1 - One of the least talked-about ideas (mostly because people figured out the low gains it provides) is tidal power; when the tide comes in, and when it goes out, the water level in a tank rises, and the intake/outflow of water causes turbines to spin. The problem? It takes a ton of beach space, reliable placing of the pipes, a LOT of maintenance (salt water causes corrosion and builds up clogging deposits fairly regularly), and generally doesn't produce all that much energy. Plus, while it's "regular" in that nobody can stop the tides, a storm swell can overload it and it only produces meaningful power during an active tidal shift.

#2 - Solar power. For a lot of low-power uses, it's become commonplace; you'll see it on crossing signs in rural neighborhoods, warning lights, powering lighthouses, and occasionally installed on someone's house. The problem for solar power production on a mass scale, however, is not to be taken lightly. First of all, the production of any silicon-based items (yes, including the boards in your computer) produces a lot of toxic waste that needs to either be denatured or disposed of somewhere. Now imagine enough silicon to cover your roof. There you go; lots of toxic waste to deal with.

Second, solar power just isn't that efficient yet. The normal solar cells available today, we're talking production-level that consumers can buy, are around 12% efficient. In the lab, 20% has been achieved, but getting that into mass production will take a long time. Solar power fanatics like to talk about the theoretical gains if they got "everyone" to put solar cells on their rooftop, but they fail to factor in the fact that at least half of those cells would be getting less-than-direct sunlight for at least half the day (e.g. overnight), they fail to consider the cost of maintaining the panels on everyone's house through rain, sleet, hail, squirrels, pooping birds... in short, the idea of blanketing everyone's roof in solar cells is probably not feasible.

Plus, just wait for a couple days of rain and heavy cloud cover. If you're relying on solar power, better hope you've got a backup.

#3 - Hydrogen. Early in his term, Bush liked to talk about the "hydrogen economy" that would replace oil. This was one of the first indications Bush doesn't know what the heck he's talking about - hydrogen, while naturally occurring, does not just get harvested. You either need to extract it from the air, or produce it from hydrogen-bearing molecules (such as water). Doing either takes energy, usually more energy than you get back from burning the hydrogen. Net result? Hydrogen is not a source of power, it's just a storage medium for transferring generated power. You still have to generate the power somewhere. Cross this one off your list.

#4 - Geothermal. In certain areas, this could work - but again, the maintenance can be a problem, and it's not usable everywhere.

#5 - The worst of all: Biofuels. Worse than snake oil, but they keep popping up thanks to the corn lobby.

Why are these the worst? Because they come with so high a cost - and not just in money. The US has gone to a mere 10% insertion of Ethanol into cars. As a result, fully half of the US's corn crop has gone to producing Ethanol. The result so far is that the cost of corn has gone up, and with it the price of meat and dairy products. Milk, healthy staple of childrens' diets, is over $3/gallon and climbing.

Meanwhile, the Ethanol has been cutting fuel efficiency, and as a corrosive agent it's devastating to internal combustion engines. It rots fuel lines, leaves nasty deposits in combustion chambers and valves, and clogs injectors, causing maintenance headaches. You may have noticed how many gas stations and service shops are carrying "engine treatments" and "injector cleaners" that are injected either into the oil or fuel reservoir? Ethanol is the reason why; combusted ethanol leaves a gummy residue behind. A car on 10% Ethanol gasoline can "run", but the best numbers I've seen have it dying or requiring engine replacement a full 50,000 miles sooner than a car on standard gas.

The net gain from Ethanol? Zero. Yes, the emissions look better "per gallon", but by the time you spend the extra 10% of fuel, the emissions per mile are about the same.

At the same time, it currently takes more than 1 unit of energy to grow, harvest, and transport 1 unit of energy (in the form of corn-based Ethanol) to the pump to go into a gas tank. A net loss of energy.

If someone did manage to get "cellulosic ethanol" working - ethanol made not from the fruit and edible portions of plants, but the "leftovers", the stems and other portions, it could get better but it's still not great.

I applaud people who are searching for alternative energy sources, but anytime I see one of them talking about how their pet one is "THE" cure for energy needs, I have to roll my eyes. Perhaps, one day, we'll get there - but as Sammler said, we really ought to be acting like adults about Nuclear energy, which is not "THE" cure either but is much better than coal/oil/gas for energy production.