The primary advantage of growing grass is that it can be harvested every week instead of annually. This provides a constant feedstock stream. A large drawback is what Cliff describes. Marginal land supports marginal growth rates. Not to mention, if farmer A can make a living growing grass on marginal land why wouldn't farmer B want to make a better living on his good land?
Thus, in a free-market capitalist nation like America.
That sentenced is then followed by examples of government mandating certain expenditures. Government mandates are not indicative of a "free-market capitalist nation".
Is there a seventh myth that Galelio said the Earth was round, a concept that predates him by nearly 2,000 years? Galelio said the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun revolves around the Earth. Get your stories correct so we can believe you.
But I did find Wisconsin on the list. 628 announced jobs in 2012 and 100 so far in 2013. Ranked 19th by Clean Edge and 18th by Earnst and Young Energy Attractiveness. Maybe the Koch brothers aren't the all powerful people you think they are..
The technical issues being ignored are the g force this would put on the passengers. Not everyone is cut out to be a fighter pilot and traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 30 minutes would subject you to similar forces.
The US produces 4 times the amount of RE as any other country listed and the effort is called pathetic by posters. How much more than anyone else do you have to produce to get off the pathetic list?
Correction, all areas of the globe get an average of 12 hours of sunlight a day. Some, like Finland get 20 hours in the summer and 4 in the winter, but it still averages to 12.
When people reference the damage from "hurricane Sandy" as a need to mitigate climate control their argument becomes suspect.
First, the damage was from tropical storm Sandy. It was not an hurricane when it made landfall.
Second, hurricanes have hit the New England area about every 30 years. This frquency has not changed even with the recent (150 year) rise in temperature.
Third, the billions in damage were more the result of much higher property values along the coast, not an increase in the intensity of the storms.
Even though this is not an economics forum I will add my two cents. There are two lines of thought when it comes to government spending. The first, which is stated in the article, is the economy is poor we should not cut spending. The second is the economy is booming we can afford to add these new programs. Under that reality, the only way to reduce spending is through laws like the sequester.
Wealthy economies can afford to watch over the environment, poor ones can't. I am sure everyone here would want the US to remain wealthy enough to afford environmental protections. The sequester is a step in that direction.
Jennifer, is it possible that some of the underlieing fear of becoming an "energy power house" is due to the disasterous results of Iceland's attempts to become a "financial power house"? Could this fear also be the result of ill feelings toward Britain over the settlement of financial claims from just a few years ago? (Next time try to get invited during the summer)
One thing the graphs do point out is that without a viable storage system there is little room left for solar to grow. Power consumption peaks at 7:00 am and enters a slow decline until 5:00 pm. Most or all of that decline is due to solar power but a renewable source for the am and pm peaks should be where the emphasis is placed and solar is not the answer (without storage) for those hours.
As to the gist of the article, I would agree that the WSJ seems to be raising a none issue.
As to many of the posters, maybe it is because I do not live in a desert (most Californians do), but my weather man misses predictions 2 days out all the time.