Well...I am going take a shot at this. But, I expect I am sticking my head in a bees nest.

Background first. Disclosure is always the best course to candid dialogue.

I am a chemical engineer with over 25 years of experience. I work for the U.S. government. My agency is tasked with regional development & national defense and is a product of the depression. I have worked in the following areas: construction, aluminum production, oil field development (Halliburton Services), fertilizer research & agricultural production, coal gasification, environmental research (technology development with emphasis on bio-remediation), economic analysis, chemical weapons production (on loan to DoD), chemical weapons destruction (two declared national emergencies & items in D.C.), and currently in the strategy group of a major utility/government agency. (Agency unnamed to avoid the appearance of an agency conflict with the current administration's views - like all government agencies mine will adhere to the requirements of Congress and the president). The opinions expressed here are my own and are not that of my agency or any past employer past.

I will start the current U.S. media love affair with renewables. I fully agree that we do need research - and a lot of it - but, to mandate current renewable use will create economic collapse. (I don't mean it might - I mean it will). Here are the core problems:

1) Solar is entirely too costly economically and environmentally. If you look at overall environmental life-cycle impact of current solar technology, the production of solar cells results a tremendous amount of environmental damage - a matter environmental advocacy groups are slow to acknowledge. In short we would be trading a relatively inexpensive technology (coal based PCs) for an as-dirty or dirtier high-cost technology.

2) Bio-mass. Algae based bio-fuels may have a promising future but... the bottom line is we cannot afford to divert traditional agricultural production away from food. There are several reasons: a) Agricultural exports are virtually the only tangible bulk item the U.S. Simply put, our balance of trade would become noticeably worse. b) To economically feed the world population we cannot afford to divert agricultural lands. The resulting unrest will be costly in both financial and political terms (not to mention the moral aspect). c) Grain-based bio-fuels require intensive agriculture to produce at competitive prices. The land-use required is so high that we could never achieve fuel self-sufficiently.

The bottom line is that there are a variety of ways to produce non-petroleum based fuels at much lower prices and with far less cost both in dollar terms and in environmental terms. (Coal refining, coal gasification, shale oils, etc.). For the record I am not ignoring the global warming issue - to produce liquid fuels - there a proven alternatives to tackle that issue).

3) Wind. Moderately more expensive than current technologies - when they don't break-down. But there are serious problems with this technology. These are: a) The torque produced in the gear boxes is so high that they break-down at an alarming rate. The problem is so pervasive, that neither turbine suppliers nor insurers will provide turbine guarantees. So, if your managing a utility a with a turbine technology that is NOT going to last long enough to pay for the investment - then you have a very serious problem. b) When the winds die, and they die regularly, you team only has seconds to respond. This means for every MW of wind power you have producing electricity you have to have another MW of non-wind power at the ready. In other words: you have to build twice the capacity as coal/gas based systems AND half of that capacity is coal/gas based (nuclear can't respond quickly enough). So, you don't gain any ground, your overall investment is twice as high, and that coal unit you would like to retire is sitting on hot standby.

I could go on about renewables...but it time for breather and a shot at alternate solutions. Here are some idea I believe make sense:

1) Ramp-up the development side of energy R&D. The bottom line is that R&D is dead in the United States. I did R&D for 15 years. The level of funding for energy R&D is an embarrassing joke. That was a mistake and we should correct it. I am open to the development of renewable technologies, but, only as a partial solution.

2) Place an emphasis on utility-scale energy (electric) storage technologies. There are near-commercial technologies out there and the efficiency gains from these devices would: a) allow existing technologies to gain thermal efficiency by eliminating the need to cycle with load and b) provide a basis for less reliable power sources (wind and solar) to produced power when the customer needs it.

3) Place an emphasis on developing a 150-250 MW commercial scale fuel-cell. The thermal efficiency gains would be tremendous and result in a substantial reduction in demand for coal and natural gas.

4) Build nuclear for any immediate needs for base-load units. I am no fan of nuclear, but, If the public wants inexpensive and ultra clean power sources using a reliable proven technology; well that is the only game in town today. We did not do enough R&D over the last 20 years and utilities have to provide power with the reliable proven tools. Give the industry reliable tools and they will use them.

5) Replace 50 year old and older coal plant with modern Coal Gasifiers (instead of traditional Pulverized Coal (PC) or super critical PCs). The gasifiers have a higher capital cost than PCs but also have a much lower heat rate (higher thermal efficiency). As the gasifiers age they can be converted from turbine base to fuel-cell based - resulting in even better economics of scale and reduced environmental impact (10-25% efficiency gain). And they are far more likely to be CO2 injection ready. Plus gasifiers provide a real opportunity to provide to a coal-based liquid fuels with a limited CO2 production (i.e.; partial oxidation of the coal/coal refining).

Dave

Bitsofstardust, I totally agree with you on two things: (1) We are bits of star dust and, in time, we shall be again; and (2) no bit-of-star-dust economist can possibly have a crystal ball/model to predict the future, economics being not a science but something akin to medieval alchemy, mere educated guessing (in the face of too many variables, most of them future, and hence unknown). What makes people think that if economists cannot explain (or, more accurately "explain" with many competing theories) how we got to where we are that anyone has a clue where we are headed. They don't. No one does.

You seem to have this well thought out and well researched. Where do you live? If you are near any areas where the future of coal plants are debated, I highly recommend you contact the Sierra Club and instigate or get involved in research into joint solutions directly with companies and workers' unions. The Sierra Club held a slogan contest for a campaign against coal, but I believe efforts are better invested in serious collaborating on identifying issues and solutions so a transition can be made. Especially where jobs are at stake, people's livelihoods and whole economies. In general, I believe that companies should partner with universities to organize the research and resources to make industrial transitions so that all information and input can be considered and applied. Whatever university you attended to get your degree, I suggest building a network so these problems can be addressed systematically and not left to chance or to politics!

Well Stardust, I am an avid Big Picture thinker as well. In a college course that was created simply so my professor and I could have an excuse to discuss the universe, planet, and all things as a system, we tried and attempted to debunk and deduce what exactly is happening, did happen, and will happen. From our efforts we came up with a few theories,
1. The financial stability of human civilization does not occur in a vacuum, much to the dismay of the experts.
2. Unless all things are considered to be variables in a much larger system, the perspective and connections needed to be made will never come about. Its similar to driving with blinders on, you lose the ability to have peripheral vision and by default focus forward--obviously not good.
3. We are in severe overshoot in terms of resource management and consumption, (the research group from MIT figured that out and predicted all that is happening now in the 70's, even before "sustainability" was coined at the G7 summit. The follow up study, "Beyond the Limits", written in the past fifteen years concluded the same thing, plus that our civilization's problem is increasing exponentially.
4. The majority of our issues come from assuming that our current system is the correct one and that all involved are assumed to be acting the best interest of the whole--to those with common sense, that one is obvious. Just like communism, capitalism requires that good and honest people are the figure heads, acting the best interest of the whole.
5. The general population needs to reclaim their stake, the power and wealth shift to the extreme 1% is not conducive to a sustainable system. Though there will always be some sort of sheep and overseer system, the imaginary line must be blurred. Governments and systems should reflect the people, and be streamlined to maximize profit regardless of long-term costs to humanity.
6. Supply and demand principals cannot exist if speculation is a driver of demand.
7. Lack of "real" education to each proceeding generation only handicaps.
8. Common sense should prevail, (ie, Katrina), a storm surge will no doubt take the path of least resistance, traveling along the see walls up the mouth of the delta. Simply extending the surge walls an additional few miles would have prevented the major back flow flooding that occurred. Doesn't fix the entire problem, but its the common sense focus we lack in lieu of saving money in the moment. Think they wished the engineers could go back and do it right? The irony of our economic situation is best shown in that the man responsible for packaging mortgage loans to be traded on the market was named a "Time" man of the century--lets gamble on a bet, sounds risk averse to me.