Edgar; doesn’t like carbon capture and I agree. Carbon capture still leaves all of the other stuff I mentioned above to kill us.

handsome; said this sounds like an ad for nuclear – and it might be however I don’t think so. I worked in the nuclear power industry for 20 yrs. and it might have a place in our future if:
1. Smaller modular Mod. V High Temp Gas Cooled or molten salt reactors are developed – which they are not.
2. Construction costs can be contained – which they are not.
3. Reprocessing of existing and new waste is performed – which it is not, AND;
4. People start picketing and asking for more nuclear power plants in their backyards – which of course they are not.

SREEKUMAR; wants us to restructure our society and reduce energy consumption and the later is not a bad idea. Conservation is a good thing and makes not only environmental sense but also save you and me money. However if I install 10 kW of solar and have a negative carbon footprint should I have to change my life style? Don’t think so.

George hopes his voice is heard and I do to. However I am a realist and understand it will most likely fall on deaf ears. Members of Congress only care about one thing – getting re-elected and that takes money. If you want change; become wealthy – that’s the way it works in America. Note: I did not say it was right LOL

styke; yes I like apple pie and motherhood but don’t understand the relationship to the article. Must be my engineer thing coming out maybe.

Richard Fletcher; wants funding for high altitude testing – did a Google search for “high altitude wind testing” and got lots of hits. It appears that the higher you go the better the wind is within reason. I am not sure how much money we are currently spending on the study of high altitude testing of wind resources?

Lots of excellent comments – lets keep it going.

Tom G.

High altitude wind power has the ability to bypass both coal and nuclear power as a viable alternative without government subsidies. The wind at high altitudes is much stronger and more steady.

One coal plant produces:

3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),- as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.

10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), – airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.

500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death.

10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), – as much as one half a million late-model cars and leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.

720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

I will say it one more time – It’s not just about CO2!
Quite fiddling around and stop burning the stuff.