This is all just smoke and mirrors (dare I say, tilting at windmills?) Something to take people's attention off the financial crisis, that's all.

Any serious examination of the energy question leads to the inevitable conclusion that it's not an energy shortage per se, but a liquid fuels shortage we are facing. So, how do windmills address that? Answer: they don't. Neither do solar arrays, tidal power or geothermal, the other so-called "green" energy sources. That's not to say they don't have their place - just that they are secondary to the real problem which everyone here is well acquainted with, ie. Peak Oil.

The basic problem is not automobile emissions but the automobile itself. Consider rush hour(s) in major urban centers. How much gasoline is burned idling in traffic vs. actually moving the vehicle? The answer is not to build more roads (and parking spaces... cue Joni Mitchell). The answer is mass transit. Electric trains powered by.... wait for it.... Nuclear Energy.

The automobile, which started as a novelty, became a convenience, quickly turned into a necessity and has now become an obstacle, HAS TO GO. It's not just the oil, it's all the materials that go into building them, and all the space taken up by roads and infrastructure to support them. Let's not even talk about the costs associated with traffic accidents, insurance, and policing.

But good luck getting people out of their cars. It seems we're destined to go down yet another blind alley in the quest to maintain a lifestyle that is clearly unsupportable.

The electric car is yet another example of this stubborn resistance to change. There's no significant reduction in materials used (many of which are derived from oil), you still need all the roads and related infrastructure, the materials for making batteries are themselves scarce, and finally, where's all that electricity going to come from to charge up those cars? Windmills? Solar arrays? As if.

Back in the 30's the US Govt. embarked on a series of infrastructure projects that had genuine long-term benefits. Many of these were hydro-electric projects that are still operating today. We need a similar approach based on 4th generation (high pressure, single cycle) reactors, a technology that is already well developed and can be implemented in concert with mass transit intiatives to solve the transportation problem before it becomes an acute crisis. There's where the focus needs to be. There's the infrastructure projects the Obama (and any subsequent administration) needs to focus on.

This won't happen overnight, but once a clean, efficient alternative to the automobile is in place, people will make the cost/benefit judgement all on their own without being forced to give up their car. Cars will still be needed for short local trips, but their usage will be reduced to the point where issues of congestion, air quality and materials consumption will be manageable.

The second major benefit of going nuclear is that it takes coal off the grid and makes it available as a liquid fuel (diesel) which can be manufactured using existing technology. There's your future liquid fuel source for aviation, trucks, heavy freight trains where electrification is impractical, and for the remaining automobile fleet which can be reduced by half, if not more. Fortunately, the US and Canada have vast coal reserves - we export it in fact - which answers the other pressing question regarding oil: reducing foreign dependance.

OK, that's my plan and I'm sticking to it. What's yours?

ebear