Note; I%26#039;m not including subsidies to biofuel, which I honestly don%26#039;t know. Most environmentalists don%26#039;t think ethanol is the best choice for our energy needs. Cellulose or algae based biofuel might be a different story.
Here are a few sources for ideas the govt might want to consider.
http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....
A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security
How we can make big steps with the technology we already have. Wind and solar are being sold short. They both have huge potential and will only get cheaper.
http://www.pluginpartners.org/
Plug in hybrid cars would average 100mpg, as the average American driver would do 60% of their driving on the battery, based on a 40 mile battery only range. You would hardly use the gas engine commuting back and forth to work, shopping etc.
Charge up overnight for $1 in electricity.
Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...
This should be considered.
%26quot;Like nuclear plants, coal plants tie up great gobs of capital during their extended construction periods. For the sponsors of such projects, the shifting sands of economic uncertainty can spell financial disaster, as many a utility learned the hard way during nuclear%26#039;s fiscal meltdown.
In contrast, solar, wind, and conservation all have shorter lead times, a fiscal advantage not sufficiently appreciated, especially in uncertain economic environments like the present. So in addition to loving these options for being %26quot;green,%26quot; planners can also love them for being %26quot;just in time.%26quot;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...
Mention wind and solar and often the response is that they are too intermittent, the wind doesn%26#039;t blow all the time and solar is daytime only etc.
That doesn%26#039;t seem to have stopped these European countries.
%26quot;There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren%26#039;t at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can%26#039;t use wind, can%26#039;t use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.%26#039;%26quot;
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...
Denmark gets 20% of it%26#039;s energy from wind.
Even Abu Dubai gets it.
Abu Dhabi to invest in solar power plants
%26quot;Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States.%26quot;
%26quot;United States%26quot; here refers to our southwest deserts, where the Scientific article recommends that we Americans build solar power plants.
%26quot;The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology. It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain.%26quot; from Green Wombat
http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/
Several articles about current progress with solar thermal power plants in California and elsewhere.
Solar thermal power plants concentrate sunlight with parabolic reflectors and use the heat to generate steam to make electricity. They can store heat in the form of water, compressed air or molten salt, to generate electricity at night.
Anyone think that solar can%26#039;t handle the task?
Here%26#039;s what a solar thermal company and a solar photovoltaic company at the cutting edge of technology have to say.
%26quot;Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.
With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.
According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, PLUS the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.%26quot; (my emphasis)
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...
http://www.ausra.com
%26quot;All of America%26#039;s needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra%26#039;s current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America%26#039;s deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines.%26quot;
%26quot;Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra%26#039;s generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra%26#039;s solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power.%26quot;