All with existing technology.

Modernize the FRA heavy freight standards that require modern passenger trains to carry extra weight (concrete blocks in the “baggage car” of the Talgo tilt trains in the Pacific Northwest) … and even more energy efficiency gains are available.

The obstacle is not technological, its a failure of political will to address the twin problems of climate chaos and structural economic dependence on energy imports.

Your points on thorium are well-taken. But the Peak Uranium theory is well-noted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium. While 70% of oil, 99% of Gas, and 100% of our Coal come from North America, only

The middle ground I’ve taken on nuclear power is that we should not extend the lifespan of decrepit power plants built in the 1960′s, so that when their contracts to operate expire they not be renewed.

Three other reasons to justify not delving further into nuclear power are the lack of a permanent storage facility, which should be infinitely more controversial than a new plant. The cost and time to build a two new reactor at the Vogtle plant is $14 billion, with a capacity of 2,234 MW ($6.26/MW , plus increasingly expensive operating costs for uranium and transporting, with diesel, nuclear waste).

Wind energy, given by all the states’ potential, can meet 90% of our energy needs. When the wind doesn’t blow in Minnesota, it blows in Texas. A national smart grid will totally solve any inefficiencies in lower renewable power operation. Solar thermal power can be used for baseload electricity.

Concerns about nuclear power are not a relic. It is not directly dirty, but the process of building it is, unless you build a reactor using equipment that runs on biofuels. Or, if you power your uranium mill with wind power. Just look deeper at the money.

Using cornstarch for ethanol is better than making corn syrup or feeding cows (which requires 75 gallons of petroleum/steer). The debate over land use is legitimate in policy, but not in penalizing farmers.

Here is a link on ethanol
(http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf.)

By establishing infrastructure and a market for ethanol, it’s making it much easier for cellulosic ethanol to advance. In five years, everyone with a flex fuel or diesel will be in much better fiscal shape than those relying solely on gasoline.

2. Electric power is considerably more efficient than diesel, so even if the people are already riding transit, the efficiencies make up for coal as a source. In transportation, anyway, the grid is more efficient than moving “local” power production.

3. A big part of the economics of electrifying rail lines is in simultaneously building out the grid for windmill power. It may be that rail electrification uses the wind power!

There is an issue with this on it increasing prices of commercial power because of reduced demand. But I am a huge believer in nuclear for that. Its safe. its no where near as bad as the treehuggers and jane fonda want you to believe and contrary to the article out of Yale on Monday, they have been building and using floating nuclear reactors for 40 year.

Its a large picture game. We need to spread out generation to each building. We need to electrify every rail line and build more. We need to build more nuclear plants. we need to build more wind/solar/undersea. Its not a one or the other as so many politicians want to make it. We even need higher mileage cars.

But that brings me to another point. There should be a $1000 per year tax on owning a second car in a family. There is really no need. If you live where you need two or more cars or have so much money you own them because you want them, move or pay up.

Mind you, 40 years is a good stopgap solution, as the price of solar and wind power drops. Right now solar is still somewhat too expensive – the up-front cost takes I believe 8 years to recoup at current US market prices – but in the future, it’ll be more accessible. Once solar and wind become as cheap as coal and hydro, it’s game over for fossil fuels.

1) it is much more abundant
2) it can’t be used to make weapons grade materials
3) can be used to safely dispose of weapons grade plutonium
4) It is much safer (the reactors are much more resistant to meltdown)

there are other benefits as well but can’t think of them off the top of my head.

nuclear power is currently the safest & cleanest power source that can be used in large scale currently known to humanity.

Biodiesel & ethanol displace food crops, wind only works when it’s windy. Solar is currently still too expensive, and only works when/where it is sunny.

The idea that nuclear power is dirty or unsafe is completely false and a relic from decades ago when proper safety standards were not well understood.

Yonah, the French use of nuclear energy is one out of several emission reduction strategies. France’s per capita CO2 emissions are among the lowest in the first world, but in some countries, most notably Switzerland, they’re even lower. Switzerland achieves its low emissions by having a rail system that covers everyone, even in suburban and rural areas.