Fusion is way in the future, but solar? wind? They are much closer, here are 2 articles from my area...

Belmar Unveils One of the Largest Solar Parking Structures in the

Western United States:

http://www.lakewood-colorado.org/PDFs/Belmar%20Dedication.pdf

Wind, solar bids surpass expectations

Developers give Xcel plans for 2,800 megawatts:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/04/wind-solar-bids-surpass-expectations/

And I have a co-worker who put solar panels on the roof of his home in Denver. It only provides a fraction of his electricity consumption, but it is a whole lot closer to reality than fusion.

Of course I know this is just a drop in the bucket, but these are real projects, implemented in the US, by real companies.

No slam against the previous poster for mentioning it, but I read it over and over. Does anyone have a credible source that explains why it is not scalable? It sounds fully scalable too me.

If you need 20 kilowatts for your house, you buy solar panels that can generate 20 kilowatts. If you need double the capacity you buy twice as many panels. If you need half the capacity, you buy half the number of panels. That sounds scalable to me. Nuclear? Coal? Gas? They ONLY work when you have plants that generate many, many megawatts.

The output of a solar (wind) powered plant would double if you doubled the number of panels (windmills). Again that IS scaling perfectly.

Can somebody provide a reference about what is meant when the statement is made that "Solar and Wind don't scale"? From what I can see, they scale PERFECTLY.

This is a person who took on the quest to be national leader, and when confronted with the horrific specter of the most blatant gotcha journalism ever seen in modern times (What newspapers and magazines do you read?) could not answer the question. Well as vice president (or possibly president) she just might have had to face a more challenging situation.

A wink and a "you betcha, I'm sure a maverick, aren't I?" aren't quite what America needs in a case like that.

There is no way Republican king makers will keep her around. She is just too stupid, even worse than Dubya. She will be completely out of the picture long before 2012, so entertaining any thoughts that she might actually be on the ticket should be just for laughs while you are waiting in line somewhere.

It would be nice if by trying to appeal to the voters they lost, the Republicans came up with a candidate who would represent the pendulum swinging in the other direction, rather than a f*ing train wreck waiting to happen. We'll see.

I actually think the chances of a major schism in the Republican party, leading to a potentially viable (more so than the Greens or Libertarians anyways) third party is very likely.

I'm not saying that irradiating food is unsafe, just that the claim by one poster that it is OK because we all microwave food is kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

Microwaves excite the electrons in the atoms in your food to produce hot food. This is the same as when you heat it with you stove. (The electron still is bound to the same atom, it has just jumped up to a higher energy level).

Irradiation ionizes the atoms in food, thus killing micro-organisms like bacteria (In this case the irradiation completely strips the electrons away from the atoms).

The link on my signature (Univ of Idaho) has answers to a few FAQs on the subject.

These 2 cases are NOT the same.

That said, I would eat an irradiated piece of meat anytime. But I will wait another decade before I make it a mainstay of my diet. In the meantime, those who do eat genetically modified or irradiated food participate in a giant experiment. The experiment may very well show that you were not exposed to any increased risk of health problems. It may also show that you were.

Here's to wishing good health to all.

I gave up on turning over boxes and such to see where stuff is made too. America just doesn't make much of anything anymore. I've tried to be a little patriotic and buy stuff made in the USA, but over, and over, and over, you just don't find a single choice among products that is made here.

When you do it is kind of bittersweet, it so damn rare.

Where in the chain of bad decisions can anyone say with a straight face that less regulation would have made things better/less disastrous?

Everyone of the links in the chain needed MORE regulation to rein in the greed-driven bad decisions that people made:

• borrowers taking on more debt than they should

• appraisers saying houses were worth more than they should be

• mortgage brokers lending money to people beyond their ability to pay

• lending companies repackaging bad loans into pretty packages that magically became good investments

• ratings firms looking at packages of smelly bad loans and deeming them AAA+

• investors who bought smelly packages and didn't ask any questions, including financial "experts" with fiduciary responsibility who completely failed to do their jobs

I'm betting the lawyers are getting ready to make massive wealth from all of the upcoming lawsuits.

This whole fiasco is an unmitigated condemnation of the ability of markets to self-regulate. It absolutely defies any notion of common sense to think that when someone can get their commission/fee in the short term, then divest themselves of any long term responsibility or risk that they would act in the best interest of the parties who will be stuck with the long term risks. It is only a matter of the bad luck of timing that any of the short term players got burned. As for the rest of us who actually followed the advice of invest for the long haul? We were going to get screwed no matter when things went bad.