Renewables Are the Smart, Least-Cost Energy Solution

[This is a reply to a comment on the Huff Post -- see below.]

We don't need "new equipment to power the US right now." We need to retire the dirtiest, most inefficient coal plants, and replace them with renewables, which are cheaper (not even counting the saved cost of pollution remediation from coal ash impoundments).


Domestic growth in demand for electricity is moderate to zero (California, with efficiency programs, has seen their demand drop steadily since the eighties, here's more info: http://www­.eia.doe.g­ov/oiaf/ae­o/electric­ity.html). We can meet most new demand for quite a while, as we've been doing without even trying very hard, with efficiency improvements that have short payback times relative to creating new generating and distribution capacity.


Implementing renewables to replace retired coal and nuke plants will save money up front (especially distributed renewables, which are more reliable and don't require power line upgrades [which we will need with new coal and nukes], aside from net meetering), and save money later since they don't create pollution and that needs to be dealt with (forever, in the case of nukes).


Renewables are possible, and the smart, least-cost thing to do. Most other industrialized countries (Russia excepted?) have figured this out, and are leaving the US.in the dust.


Read more here: http://com­pletelybak­ed.blogspo­t.com/2009­/11/wind-e­nergy-econ­omics.html


and here: http://com­pletelybak­ed.blogspo­t.com/2009­/02/renewa­bles-inter­mittency-r­eliability­.html


and here: http://com­pletelybak­ed.blogspo­t.com/2009­/03/electr­icity-gene­ration-cen­tralizatio­n.html (be sure to see links in this post)

About Green Energy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost