Solar isn't the only viable option.

Wind and wave power are viable.

And then there's hemp ethanol:

http://hemp-ethanol.blogspot.com/

Three Mile Island worked just like it was supposed to; there were no injuries and no long term environmental impacts. Why people continue to whine about it is beyond me. As for Chernobyl, that was built using carbon to shield radiation and no sealed superstructure around the reactor, both of which have never been implemented in the USA. That is a very poor example and shouldn’t be used as a way of dismissing nuclear power.
Casey?

Yeah, all hail Ra, the sun god. - NOT

Facts On The Ground:

-No ground based solar farm could ever practically meet the current energy demand let alone the increase that is surely to follow.

-Hydrogen needs to be made, and that takes energy to begin with.

-As for wind, well I won't insult any ones intelligence by going into the details of why that won't work.

-For now nuclear fission is all we got, that and Methane clathrate and the untapped oil fields under Antarctica.

Fusion would be nice but thats still experimental.

Reply to Casey?/Priceman Thread Tue, 2008-06-17 21:57:
(Another victim of Mr. Fiore's incredible shrinking windows!)

I'm curious about your anecdotal evidence (i.e. about the legal side of things). Specifically, anything you've dealt with pertaining to regulation of nuclear energy. I don't get to see the legal side of issues 'up close' as much as I'd like.

The citizen.org piece rehashes some good points, but you'll note that the per-year subsidies they're denouncing amount to less than the cost of the SciAm plan.

The contention that nuclear power is 'too slow, expensive, and inflexible a technology to address climate change' implies that renewable is somehow 'faster', which both the SciAm and the IEA people disagree with.

Having toured a reactor plant (at McMaster University) during my undergrad, I can assure you that the 'crashing a plane into a nuclear reactor to cause a meltdown' scenario is technological fiction.

And if a team of eighty commandos storms a plant, all it takes is the push of a button to instantly shut down a reactor and prevent its reinitialization. The control systems are mechanized, gravity-driven, fail-safe in the event of any kind of tampering or power outage, and ludicrously redundant (six sigma by four, at the very minimum). And despite that a 'master control box' to meltdown all the reactors in the U.S. makes for good watchin' on '24', you've never heard a group of engineers laugh louder. (It isn't mechanically possible for reactors to increase reaction rates above set tolerances, for starters.)

There's always problems with NIMBY, but at some critical point people have to accept the risk if the good of society demands it. We wouldn't have a single prison, homeless shelter, methadone clinic, sewage treatment plant, dump, freeway, etc., etc. if people didn't. (Besides, you guys ship a fair bit of your nuclear waste up here to Canada, anyway.)

My point being that if nuclear turns out to be a less expensive and faster to implement than solar in the short-term (e.g. the next 25-50 years), I'm with Casey? and Buster the Friendly Nuke.

Hate to do this, especially to a fellow Edwards supporter, but you're wrong.

There are many fatal flaws with nuclear power and they are not irrational fears of "the American left." They are the facts:

Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Summary

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/a...

It will probably have to be used in some capacity as a stepping stone before more efficiency output increases, but it is not a viable solution like solar for many reasons. Huge subsidies for the unregulated nuclear energy industry are what this propaganda campaign is trying to push through and it's important to get the facts and they don't support your conclusion.

And Americans are actually more to the left than people realize(most want to end the war and are mostly pro-choice. Most support health care for all even if they have to pay taxes to get it, and most want the environmentally sound policies), but what is called "the center" has shifted significantly to the right sand most Americans are not there anymore.

NO embed codes, PLEASE. People would go crazy with them and a huge RAM suck would happen when you suspected an innocent blog. What's wrong with a simple link?

...But, this 'toon is gold...

As a retired clegy-type, let me say, NOPE.

This estimate is false, though you are right some key figures in your comment. Here are the facts:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation.

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

Huge tracts of land, but hardly 1/3rd of the U.S:

In our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining. Studies by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., show that more than enough land in the Southwest is available without requiring use of environmentally sensitive areas, population centers or difficult terrain. Jack Lavelle, a spokesperson for Arizona’s Department of Water Conservation, has noted that more than 80 percent of his state’s land is not privately owned and that Arizona is very interested in developing its solar potential. The benign nature of photovoltaic plants (including no water consumption) should keep environmental concerns to a minimum.

It's actually slightly longer than your estimate, which I do give credit, but solar energy can fit the total bill without those other technologies. Really I get the cost concern and you're right that we probably will need to be taxed in some way(but not substantially like you claim), because though our government is in a crippling amount debt, unregulated industry is allowed to thrive and what we need is an aggressive carbon tax, which is already outlined in this proposal which will work if implemented:

Who Pays?

Our model is not an austerity plan, because it includes a 1 percent annual increase in demand, which would sustain lifestyles similar to those today with expected efficiency improvements in energy generation and use. Perhaps the biggest question is how to pay for a $420-billion(I give you credit fore being right about the cost here) overhaul of the nation’s energy infrastructure. One of the most common ideas is a carbon tax. The International Energy Agency suggests that a carbon tax of $40 to $90 per ton of coal will be required to induce electricity generators to adopt carbon capture and storage systems to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This tax is equivalent to raising the price of electricity by one to two cents per kWh. But our plan is less expensive. The $420 billion could be generated with a carbon tax of 0.5 cent per kWh. Given that electricity today generally sells for six to 10 cents per kWh, adding 0.5 cent per kWh seems reasonable.

Congress could establish the financial incentives by adopting a national renewable energy plan. Consider the U.S. Farm Price Support program, which has been justified in terms of national security. A solar price support program would secure the nation’s energy future, vital to the country’s long-term health. Subsidies would be gradually deployed from 2011 to 2020. With a standard 30-year payoff interval, the subsidies would end from 2041 to 2050. The HVDC transmission companies would not have to be subsidized, because they would finance construction of lines and converter stations just as they now finance AC lines, earning revenues by delivering electricity.

Although $420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts.

Without subsidies, the solar grand plan is impossible. Other countries have reached similar conclusions: Japan is already building a large, subsidized solar infrastructure, and Germany has embarked on a nationwide program. Although the investment is high, it is important to remember that the energy source, sunlight, is free. There are no annual fuel or pollution-control costs like those for coal, oil or nuclear power, and only a slight cost for natural gas in compressed-air systems, although hydrogen or biofuels could displace that, too. When fuel savings are factored in, the cost of solar would be a bargain in coming decades. But we cannot wait until then to begin scaling up.

It doesn't pay to be too pessimistic IMO, we didn't move past the stone age, because we ran out of rocks, or invent th automobile, because we ran out of hay. Here is the challenge:

The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan. 

Have faith. ;)

actually a very EASY way houses could be heated or cooled in north america and even around the world is geothermal energy....

essentially you drill holes in the ground then put in some pipes with a fluid (i can't remember what) and with a little bit of electricity you literly PUMP the heat out of the ground to heat up the house...........

or to cool you pump it back down into the earth works both ways.

the innitial cost is high but the energy savings pay for it's self in 5-8 years

What you wrote may be true, but another true fact is the growing demand for oil, especially since countries like China, Brazil and India are trying to catch up with Westerners economically, and in their consumption habits. And these countries are among the most populous on the planet. If their inhabitants are meant to be as greedy as Westerners are, the oil reserves are scarcer than we think.