The solutions I see are, biomass, distributed generation of low-emission gas generators, energy efficiency & conservation (EEC) measures, nuclear, clean-coal, and solar pv technology:  EEC and nuclear are already here.  As for the rest, technology hasn't reached a point where they are viable nationwide on a wide-scale basis, nor fit as a market-ready solution.  The money spent on technology to make that happen has been growing, but technology needs time to develop and decipher.  The DOE has recently initiated and awarded major funding to spearhead these developments.

But for now and the future when technology will solve our GHG problem, something has to bridge the gap to reduce GHG yet supply the security to the power grid we need.  Currently, it appears to me all we really have to make a "viable" impact and secure the power grid, is coal, gas, and nuclear.  All those other "feel good" alternative generation sources (wind, thermal, solar, wave, tide, new hydro) are nice and can supplemental as much as possible but they have their environmental and societial limits, and collectively still cannot bridge the needs of today till the time technology is forecasted to present the solutions.

What is it then should be pushing?  Energy Efficiency and Conservation - the cheapest, the cleanest and the most readily available source of generation available today.  17.9% of all electricity generated is lost during the course of distribution and tranmission.  40% of all power purchased by industry is lost and never used in its process, due to old equipment, inefficient product design, and idling machinery.  35% of all electricity used by businesses in the USA is for lightning.  Switching to CFL or LED by those businesses, according to the DOE, can removed 21,000 MW of electricity from the grid nationwide

Furthermore, a smart grid equipped with smart switches, new and improved T&D equipment, and wide-scale utility, public and private participation in demand response and load management (ie. energy conservation) is what will get us to future when technology will produce powerful and viable non-C02 generating sources. 

The state of California believes EEC is so viably important it ranks EEC first in load order when more power is needed.  State regulators much first pursue EEC per state law before any other source of new power is considered.

The state of TX currently has a proposal in its legislature detailing how to eliminate 15 years of future energy needs through EEC.  The reduction is so much the proposal suggests reduction in demand as much as 9% below current level by the year 2022, is possible for the state of TX.  Imagine the need for no new generation for 15 years!

The new U.S. Congress is currently studying EEC as the means to bridge the present to the future, and found it so important, it pushed EEC legislation, now set for July, ahead of Climate Policy, now set for fall 07.  The great thing is the legislation is bi-partisan supported, with many utility and industry groups participating in the consultation.

So why hasn't EEC been on the front page - who knows?  Perhaps because it is boring stuff and it isn't exciting like all those other neat-o alternative energy solution.  Maybe because Silicon Valley techies and green venture capitalists are pushing it, since there is no easy money to be made there.  Perhaps because neo-environmentalists aren't big on it because it doesn't derail the money and influence big utility companies already have, meaning their clout will remain where it is. 

We'll soon see and hear more about.  Check with your local utility and ask if there is a load management (passive) or demand-response program (active) you can participate in.  Ask your local county supervisor if county buildings participate in their utility's demand side mgmt program.  No one can lose money since its voluntary, and the county (and yourself) would ultimately save money using less kilowatts.  The same applies to state buildings.  Ask your state rep to push a bill on EEC on all state owned facilities.  The feds are also about to passed such a bill. 

EEC and DG are the true alternatives for states where an RPS with "traditional" alternative generation sources are not viable (and that applies to most of the 50 states.)  And where alternative sources are viable, EEC and DG can further add to a state's RPS further decreasing fossil-fuel generation and saving the climate.

for your clear and compelling case that Energy Efficiency and Conservation is the way to go.  I agree, a lot of the other stuff is more "feel good," although I would definitely proceed as quickly as possible with solar, wind, tidal, etc.  What I would definitely NOT proceed with is crazy, uneconomical, irrational schemes like planting the whole country with corn so we can feed our cars with it.  I also am VERY skeptical of other biofuels as having the potential to make any significant difference in the next 5, 10, or even 20 years.  By that point, the polar ice caps could be melted and we could all be under water.  In other words, we don't have time to waste, and the one thing we know for sure that will work, on a large enough scale to make a difference, is energy efficiency and conservation.  (Another one is nuclear power, as long as we can deal with safety, economic, and waste disposal issues adequately.)  Now, we know the answers, let's get going!

Thanks for writing it up.

Although I really would like to see us embracing the "feel good" solutions - as you describe them.  If we don't push these technologies toward the mainstream today then we'll be saying the same thing about them five and ten years from now... "when they are ready".

Bush's 10 billion over 5 years isn't going to move these "feel good" solutions into the mainstream very quickly.  How about 10 billion per month?  That would get things moving. 

And this is ultimately one of the points I was making - that that kind of investment will only work if there is a will to make it happen. 

Eric, everyone has their favorite sources of alternative energy.  Personally, the one I favor is the thermal wind chimney.  If you haven't heard about it, it's a 10-12 story chimney, elevated about 15'feet off the ground, overtop of a large spread of a plastic-type material, 3'feet off of the ground but covering the surface of say 10 acres of ground.  The cover basically traps then warms the air underneath just as a greenhouse would, but allows the heated air to rise into and out of the chimney, where it turns turbine.  Cool, free electricity, no sound, no emissions!

While there are allot of neat things out there, what has to be realized is that every region, every state and/or every nation has their own specific circumstances which to decipher as to what source(s) is best.  Allot of what we are seeing are merely pilot-like projects or alternative source just to satisfy the state RPS at the minimum.  The free-market tends not to present more beyond the minimum because they are not cost-effective or are efficient. 

For example, Dominion, just before proposing their 500kv line, announced that they had bought a 50% stake in a 172MW wind farm in W.Va.  The next thing we saw was Dominion promoting their transmission proposal stating that it would use wind power to supply electricity to NoVa.  The sad part about it is it appears Dominion purchased it, just to help promote their 500kv proposal, while failing to expound on it.  On-shore wind in the mid-Atlantic has an efficiency of 35-40% because of poor luck, geographically.  While the nameplate of 86 two MW turbine generators is equal to 172MWs, on an annual basis Dominion only expects the wind farm to supply about 69MW of electricity into the gird.  At 2 acres per turbine, the reality in the mid-Atlantic is, allot of private property and mountain wilderness would be affected if say, a 1,000MW wind farm was proposed. 

Also, lining the mid-Atlantic coastal waters with 1,000's of windmills (as suggested by the U. of Del.) which are subject to saltwater damage, hurricane damage, and possibly upset avian fans out there, just doesn't sound like a top option.  A 150 or 300 MW small farm here or there, comprising no more than 7% of total generation, seems to be what is in store, considering the price, the impact, and the efficiency. 

The same goes with solar.  Virginia isn't the southwest.  Our state and the rest of our region is farther north, where the average sun generated days is like 52-54%, and poor weather presents a serious risk of major damage. 

PV technology is advancing, however, and I think it is believed around 2015, nanotechnology will reduce the size/increase the efficiency, by some 38% on current technology.  Around the year 2020-25, the DOE strategy is to have affordable market-ready solar technology fit for the implementation on every household roof, as a type of solar powered roofing shingle.  But throwing more millions where there are human limitations and insufficient corporations capable of handling such an endeavor responsibly, is wishful thinking and wasteful to say the least.

In the mid-Atlantic, our bodies of water neither supply enough wave action nor tidal change nor water flow to power a substantial amount of generation.  Hawaii, the Pacific west, and far NE North America are more suitable, but at what cost will the coastal shorelines have to pay?

Cleaner technologies in coal generation are on the horizon.  A recent bill was introduced (Bunning-Obama) spearheading IGCC and IGCC/CCS.  A DOE funded prototype zero-emission coal plant is under construction by AEP and a few others in Ohio, and is said to be completed by 2012.

Biomass technology, waste-to-energy (not biofuels for vehicles) is something which can viably supplement the grid.  Remember the mayor of Warrenton?  There are two such waste-to-energy plants in NoVa, one off of I-95 in Lorton, VA and one off of Eisenhower Ave in Alexandria along the Beltway.

Speaking of vehicles, on the horizon there is an endeavor funded by some big time venture capitalists, including the DOE, IBM and Goldman Sachs.  The aim is to produce a ceramic battery capable of holding a significant charge for a prolonged period.  Some company in TN outside of the Oak Ridge Research Lab facility, is developing technology to produce a battery, capable of providing enough power to run an SUV-sized vehicle, full loaded, run it @ 65mph, for the same length of time as a 20 gallon tank of gas would, on one single charge. 

I don't think blaming the Bush administration is going to help.  Ironically some of these initiates were attempted early on in his administration but failed under a Democratic Congress, but later passed under a Republican majority.  One thing for certain is there's allot of politics, some big money wants one thing, yet others want gov't policy to go another direction; and the little guys like us are stuck watching and waiting. 

Lastly, the one thing about EEC is that a few stalwart utility CEO's (AEP and PNM especially) let the cat out of the bag and testified before Congress last March, one day before Al Gore spoke actually; while other CEO's like Dominion's Farrell, keep EEC in the closet.  The PNM CEO stated "Our industry must be made to pick the lowest hanging fruit first."  But why was most of industry so quite for so long?  - Because traditionally, utilities make less money, when you and I conserve electricity.  What will motivate industry to go full-throttle with EEC?  Congress and FERC are now entertaining a pricing concept, which will allow compensate the amount of electricity save/generated thru EEC, similarly as 1 MW is compensated say if it were generated by nuclear, coal or wind.  The law has to change to give utilities the incentive.  Consumers need to pay utilities for each MW from EEC, the same as other generation sources. 

I'm not sure what you'd heat your home with without oil,gas but as far as vehicles are concerned, I see the Deloren from Back to the Future, the 69 Charger "muscle car" from the Dukes of Hazard and the Batmobile from Batman, both TV show and the movie, as big obstacles toward going alternative.  You had to get up to a certain amount of speed to hit the gigawatts for the Back To the Future car, and the Dukes of Hazard was all about the car and the Duke boys escaping the law by getting up to a speed so that the muscle car could jump hills. Where am I going with this?

I think the prius is the best thing to happen to us, that said, you can't rev up your engines in a hybrid the way you can with a gasoline oil dependent car. Thus my examples. I think the wimp factor of the car is going to be a big factor for a majority of people as this is the country of John Wayne, Macho Man. I think if you can answer that, global warming will subside dramatically. Ironically,and I got this from my Biology book that's updated to this year, a bunch of singles like myself, and couples, who don't want to have kids, are contributating to a population decline,which could have a small affect on Global Warming.
So, some things to consider.