I do hope the green stimulus plan is effective and will create millions of job opportunities for many, rather than (politics as usual) that would certainly lend itself to further degradation and weakness to the American society and economy. As this is an all important and very critical time in American history we truly need to allow American ingenuity to take root and flourish once again.

Happy New Year!

David
Energybloggers.com

The thrust of this effort must be to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by shifting our economy and society onto renewable produced electricity.

We must end our economic dependency on the countries that hold oil and natural gas reserves. Doing so creates a more sustainable economy and society while strengthening our national security and energy security.

Chris
StandardSolar.com

Get it right the first time Mr Obama -we have already wasted millions or perhaps billions on some futile so called renewables such as wind power which are no more than illusions for the naive and gullible.These taxpayers dollars would have served the country better had they been used to build more nuclear stations or to develop realistic technologies such as
geo thermal.
see www.WindPowerFacts.Info

Thanks Tony-Get it right the first time Mr Obama -we have already wasted millions or perhaps billions on some futile so called nuclear power which are no more than illusions for the naive and gullible.These taxpayers dollars would have served the country better had they been used to build more solar plants. I have worked in the solar industry for 22 years now and have many customers who run off wind and solar systems at a lower cost than the utilities with no rebates or subsidies. Nuclear in my opinion is dead and we will have to continue to pay for the power already generated for the next thousand years or so to protect the waste stream from the plants.

It is important for our country to not jump off the green energy cliff while attempting to obtain energy independence. I think everyone agrees that renewable energy is a huge part of our future, but what we don't "see" (yet) are the miles of transmission lines skirting across pristine deserts and mountain ridgelines bringing in renewable energy from remote areas.

We have a chance to do it right...focus on point of use energy generation and leave the costly and destructive 150 foot steel towers in the 20th century where they belong.

After the third wave of IT REVOLUTION followed by the immense infrastructure and investments, the fourth wave of ET REVOLUTION awaits a BOLD ACTION for CHANGE, I think. The new govt is on the basis of THE POLICY OF ENERGY INDEPENDENCY adopted by a Democratic Procedure. Americans have chosen CHANGE, and NOTHING ADVENTURED, NOTHING GAINED ! Energy Independency is the unavoidable task after all, and it can also bring down the fuel costs ultimately as a by-product, which might be enormous enough to cover the upgrade investments. And all the brilliant brains get together in the U.S. for the better life and future. Lastly, without jobs, the economic activity can't be activated, and the working class is broke due to the imported fuel costs, therefore the stimulus project by the govt may be in dire need. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION !

Denise Morse:

Another reason for distributed generation! Energy security is another one -- the more dispersed our energy generation is, the harder it is to sabotage it.

On the other hand, concentrating solar, 150-foot towers and all, makes for a utility-scale use of renewables, better than leaving our power gneration to coal-fired plants.

All of the above comments are extremely important. Nuclear technology is and has negatives and positives. France realizes this. Powerlines will have to be used unless we all have our backyards filled with solar or windmills for our personal energy source. The fight on the left also is fighting with the left. Environmentalists are fighting against the lefts wish for alternative fuels. The industrial complex is waiting for the fight to be decided before they come in or for the people to say look the other way by the environmentalists. Many points of technology is going to be the answer. No one technology for alternative energy sources seems viable due to national security reasons and environmental reasons. Different industry sources need to develop their own industry infrastrure and this being accomplished by the local inhabitants desires. Work together and this problem will be solved. Don't work together and it will take two or three times as long.

There is no 'one size strategy fits all' approach.

Each region of the U.S. has renewable, sustainable energy resources which out weigh others.

Maine has enough water to export electricity, and enough tidal energy to provide free electricity for any energy intensive industry.

We have a few hundred thousand acres of PEAT bogs, a renewable that is being mined for greenhouses.

Our biomass is getting fat on the warmer temps and the CO2; and expanding 2-3% above current need.

Solar PV has flopped in our N. Climate---way too expensive, far too many limited visibility days, esp. in winter.

Solar Thermal is expensive for homes with radiant heating.

Wind is very iffy and limited to Coastal settings and western mountains; even then you need R.O.W., and transmission/distribution corridors. Maine saw a wind boomlet in the 70's and 80's that fizzled out.

Integrated organic solid waste and sewerage facilities using anaerobic digester's that can produce tons of natural bio-gas to fill the various LNG pipelines is a task well suited for the President and Congress since they control water & sewer and LMOP monies; and can bring about a marriage between the autonomous sewerage treatment districts and the municipal solid waste disposal facilities.

A regional/state approach to alternative energy production is the best thing OBAMA could do; instead of pushing one modality in areas where it makes no sense to do so.

Wind is limited to coastal settings and Western mountains? I had thought the hot spot for wind was the great plains states. I had heard that South Dakota gets enough wind to power damn near the whole country. I had heard that some Native tribal governments around there had been developing wind power. Any news on the progress there?

Industrial leftists and environmentalists do clash sometimes on these things, with regard to the impact of turbines on local life - birds, fish, etc. But considering how much plant and animal life has been lost to combustive tech, from waste heat to the fly ash spills at coal plants of which I hear now there is a second one in TVA turf, wind and wave turbine impact still seems like some serious harm reduction.

In general I think most people here are taking the most logical approach to consider both localized and distributed possibilities. As for nuclear, I'll believe it is anything like a green alternative the moment any corporation utilizing it employs only electric-powered equipment in all phases of construction, mining, transport and disposal. Walk your talk, nukies! At the very least, renewables deserve to be government-underwritten at the same level as were nuclear plants in order for anyone to speak convincingly of a level field of competition.

As a homeowner struggling to hold it together like many others, I am looking over the math for PV. My bill last year for all my energy consumption was $1216.10, for 6914 kWh and 179 therms. Displacing all of this with PV, the most reliable single on-site source for my area, would take a system which can produce 12158.7 kWh in a year, or 6660 watts assuming five good hours a day. At RealGoods' $7.50 per watt, that is $50k. Even after CSI and fed rebates at the current Step 5, it is $27771.73. What I pay for grid energy in a year is 4.38% of that. Only now in our current financial chaos could one even think it possible to finance it at this low an interest rate.