Nuclear will not help us speed the transition, because it will take decades to get a fleet of new plants up and running. And, considering the economic woes we’re facing, who’s going to pay for 10,000 to 1 million years of fool-proof storage?

The Hoover Dam, along with other major dam projects, when adjust for inflation, has never made a profit. The cost for these massive industrial undertakings is paid by the taxpayer, i.e. you. Considering we now have means of avoiding environmental devastation, like solar and wind power, we have to consider that industry that produces a clean solution with minimal footprint, is the best choice.

Freaking joke, that one. If we want power based on a (relatively) renewable energy source that doesn’t harm the environment anywhere near the levels of oil, gas, or for God’s sakes coal, AND a source that can actually supply enough power to meet the needs of our ridiculous society here in the states (not by any means that I think our power demands are “wrong” – I’m right there sucking it down with the rest of them) then I’m pretty sure nuclear is currently the best answer. (environmentalists love that one)

Proven to be cleaner in both the short term and long term than any of the current power sources, and also proven to generate the output required. Properly handled, generates less of the horrible “greenhouse gasses” that are hailed by the media and ignorant masses to be destroying our planet. (not that they’re not a problem, but don’t I don’t believe everything I read about Britney in the rags, why should something “sciencey” automatically gain credibility?)

Either that, or we need to get started building a BOATload more hoover damns…

Solar collection technology has to be the long term solution, I’m not sure how we can even argue against that.

If you’re worried about the environment, don’t use ethanol, completely energy negative. And for sure don’t buy a hybrid unless you plan on driving it the next 10 years, in which case it might equal out against a used geo metro…

I’d almost rather argue about whether there’s a God or not, than talk to someone about the “environment” these days. I think religious advocates may have more sense about them…

As environmental groups, lobbyists and the general public push for more environmentally friendly industrial practices, scientists are finding innovative ways to bring down costs and increase the efficiency of renewable resources. The dye-sensitive solar cells (DSSC), with a pinkish sheen, now being developed at Ohio State University, are an example of the type of engineering innovation that could bring about a genuine green-power revolution…

This is some of the best news I’ve heard in years.

You obviously could not get into MIT

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080626/clth039.html?.v=101

If office buildings were build to reflect on each other,
as in \_/ you’d have positive energy generation from
their windows.

The technology involved in the OSC-type solar panels will be less expensive to produce and will involve significantly fewer carbon emissions than existing standards in solar cell production. The cost for coating existing cells with the light-concentrating dyes is minimal compared to retrofitting existing solar farms with experimental technologies, and the value of a zero-pollution method for harvesting energy goes far beyond the current “interim fixes” like “clean coal” or increased exploitation of Canada’s oil sands.

Conservation is a wonderful and necessary component of a healthy energy economy, but MIT can’t force consumers to do it, nor can the government. Backing this sort of technology will help speed it to market, and will likely attract money to other, perhaps as yet unimagined, cutting edge technologies.