[chimera]

Conservation is fine as far as it goes. Nobody is advocating deliberately wasteful energy use. But it is important to remember that conservation in and of itself does not produce a single watt of new capacity. You are always going to need an energy source to conserve. From the numbers I’ve seen, growth in demand alone, not even including retirement of older generating assets because of age, reliability, or GHG emissions, will dwarf whatever savings we might gain from conservation, and also dwarf whatever we might reasonably expect from development of so-called “renewable” energy sources. So where do we go to meet the additional demand? It means either sticking with carbon-based combustion, like coal or expensive, depletable natural gas, or, ta da, nuclear.

[NordP]

I said NEARLY 100% ;-) where there’s a lot of sun. The sun is getting a bad rap with the skin cancer thang these days. I’m on the PR committee for LOVE THE SUN ;-) (I grew up in Minnesota...can yah tell? ;-)