neither example is apt.  Pearl Harbor featured a problem easy to see and understand.  Apollo project had trivial impact upon the economy

So the call to Heroism will not be answered in the same way.

Will not.

So what is left is politics.  As usual.  The usual kind.

Two separate issues.  Big problem?  Cost?

Please, Senator, forget about the cost.  John Q Public always pays, one way or another.  Cut a deal.

  I'm amazed at how people look to the Feds and expect legislation to cure any ills. Carbon-free energy is to the point where is actually makes sense - sorry wind and photovoltaic, but your technology is preposterously primitive , exepnsive and impotent with horrible side effect costs (like th eneed for duplication since neither can help meet peak demand). Solar thermal and nuclear is about all that's needed to meet any power goals. The other technologies are basically irrelevant, although efficient geothermal and hydroelectric are always welcomed.
The desire for carbon free power and the lowered cost of solar thermal and the renaiissance of nuclea is all that's needed, along with the electrification of the automobile, which is
occurring at GM and Byd via practical plug-ins that can do virtually everything a battery-only electric can. Reducing carbon has become a very simple problem. Unfortunately there are still those pushing horribly obsolete technologies like wind and photovoltaic and non-dispatchable wave
that are getting in the way. Economics and eventualy some sanity (sorely missing) and logical thinking will do the trick. There are simply too many fools out there who think you need a dozen different technologies that need to be promoted. I will strongly opose any govt funds being wasted on non-dispatchable power and call for such technologies to be forbidden from govt subsidy.

and how blocked?

I agree with you on every point. Keep fighting to strengthen this bill. It may never be enough, but every little step makes a difference--and possibly lays groundwork for further improvements in the future. Because before too much longer, either many of the Congressmen and Senators currently blocking meaningful change will be replaced, or the problem will become so obvious that even that group will be forced to change their stances. But we need to start making progress now. So, as long as it won't undermine future improvements to our environmental program, fight for the strongest bill that can possibly be passed!

If I lived in Vermont, you would have my vote from now on. Keep up the good work! :)

Thanks for taking a stand on our behalf.

Dear Bernie,

Your work reminds me of what Al Gore is doing.  Thanks for your intellectual honesty and courageous action.

Would you agree the first time humanity fails to solve the problems on Earth that WE create could be the last time we fail? At least to this point in time, it looks to me as if humankind has an unblemished record of achievements.

Of course, past prosperity is no guarantee of favorable outcomes in the future; however, I am placing my abiding faith and complete confidence in humankind to assure a good enough future for our children and coming generations.

As many are likely aware, quite a large number of people, inside and outside of science, have suggested that the human predicament looming before humanity in the 21st century reminds them of the first and last voyage of the Titanic.

If, indeed, humankind finds itself in command of a ship, the "Century XXI Human Predicament," and also has good scientific evidence that this ship could soon strike an iceberg, one already dimly visible on the far horizon, would you agree that reasonable and sensible people immediately open discussions regarding a change in the ship's course?

Or is humanity and life as we know it better served by accelerating the ship's speed, reinforcing the ship by making it larger and its hull thicker, by relying on future techno-fixes and, consequently, choosing to stay the current course............steady as it goes?

As ever,

Steve

Exactly!  The buzz words for this talking point?  

"We are going to need all the alternatives to beat climate change and gain energy independence."

Then they list nukes, fuel farming, clean coal, and so forth...  and invariably leave out wind, wave, biogas, solar, conservation, a smart grid, plugin hybrids, light electric rail, bike trails,and conservation.  How (in)convenient.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Please note that the 1.8 kW turbine sited is, even at the cheap price of $12,000 not "affordable" and will not serve as an investment in today's economy. Far from it.
   I consult to the small wind industry and have a 1.8 kW turbine at my home in the Champlain Valley. I talk truth about small wind turbines to real people who live in real places in Vermont. A 1.8 kW turbine provides, perhaps, 1200 kW-hrs of energy per year in Vermont's champlain Valley, a not unrealistic average wind speed for where people tend to live. At 11.4 cents per kW-hr (Vermont price)that adds up to $136.80 a year for a grand "pay-back" of the $12,000.00 in about 88 years. Meanwhile, my neighbor who invested his $12,000.00 in bonds at 5% will have earned $73,333.33. But my turbine will not last 88 years unless I resort to extraordinary methods (termed regular maintenance)...which, you guessed it, cost money. See where this is going? Most people do not live where the wind blows fast enough to compete with a modest alternative investment made with the same money.
   On top of that, at the end of the turbine life, often less than 10 years but reported to be between 15 and 25 years, the turbine is trash and the investment's value is zero, or nearly so: scrap value. At the end of that term my neighbor will still have his initial investment back.
   We install small turbines not for the investment (as such), but for love. And that's good enough for a number of folks. Let's not disparage it. But let's also get real about small wind turbines (and let's get real about the giants, too, they will not produce enough power to make their visual and environmental impact worth the while, period.)
   I advise folks interested in small wind for "the investment" to take the money they were going to put into the turbine...or PV array...and invest it in the stock market. The average return (if you can stomach the up and down ride...you could lose it but you were going to lose the 12 grand for sure buying a turbine) is around 9%. Take the income from that investment and put it into tightening up the house: new windows and doors and insulate, insulate, insulate. In a short time you will have lowered the amount of heat your home uses dramatically, directly impacted global warming, US hegemony, the pillage of foreign oil, AND, for these ill gotten gains (you'd have to feel guilty for doing so well for so little) you get a much more comfortable house. Now, what's so hard about this?
   It will be useful to note that this year, again, Europe, despite it's huge penetration of giant wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays, produce more CO2 than they ever have. Why is that? Something's not working about this renewables idea. Denmark, it is said, produces not 20% but 40% of it's power from wind yet Denmark produced just slghtly less CO2 this year than last and has advanced to become the 7th largest recipient of US exported coal. Because the wind over Denmark is so mismatched to their demand, 84% of their wind generated power is exported to their grid partners, mostly to Germany, Sweden and Norway, where it displaces not CO2 produced electricity, but hydro produced electricity, another clean source. It all adds up to a disappointing mess that Europeans are going to have to live with for a long, long time.
   Indeed, people are getting rich over this boondoggle. Note Please that "swindle" has "wind" in the middle if it. Sorry to trash a darling but there it is.
   Let's get real about addressing global warming. Forget the renewables with their outsized, environmentally destructive footprints and concentrate on conservation (we use too much of everything (except common sense) and we're too fat, let's admit it) and efficiency (which, today, can offer us far more "energy" than anyone has realized)and put some serious money (Iraq war amounts...a trillion dollars would be appropriate but we could settle on $200 Billion as evidence of a good faith start in this effort) into safe and secure advanced nuclear power. There are even rumors that we could use our (VT Yankee) stockpile of nuclear waste reprocessed...as they are in Europe. Fusion power, would, of course, be a marvelous outcome of this investment in our energy future. Let's get on with it. Seriously.
Best,
Paul Kenyon
Cumulus Engineering, LLC

Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.

Opps, You can see I'm not in the habit of handling large sums of money. In my calculation of how much $12,000 would earn in 88 years invested at 5% I goofed. It would amount, in the end, to about $770,000.00 so my neighbor is making out way better than I ever thought. Remind me to invest $12K at 5% for 88 years at the beginning of my next life so I have a retirement to lookforward to.
Best,
Paul

Paul Kenyon is owner of Cumulus Engineering, LLC and studies wind power and sites and installs small turbines.