Ocean currents can power the world, say scientists

A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim.

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

This is great! I love seeing info like this!

I hope we will soon use the better power sources; but also, I hope we can learn to use the power wisely.

That's good, because the windmills aren't going to cut it.

************

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.

[www.energytribune.com]

True Lois, but those windmills would be a big help.

California has been successfully using windmills for years, and research and development efforts are creating more cost-effective products.

This quote from the article says it all --

Quote

These figures reflect a poor return on investment. But this poor return is often obscured by the SUBSIDY SYSTEM that allows turbine operators and supporters to claim they can make a profit even when turbines operate at a very low load factors. So what’s the bottom line? BRITISH CONSUMERS ARE PAYING TWICE OVER paying twice for their electricity, FUNDING ITS MEANS of production and paying for its use as end users.

In other words, as usual - Taxpayers are being soaked, in the name of "Green", by the Government Agenda. Just like the "Cap and Trade" and "Conservation Easement" and all the rest of the so-called "Save The Planet" schemes.

Rule of Thumb -- Governments are the Enemy of We The People

Lois,

It doesn't mean the product can't improve. People are working to do that, and that was my point.

Lois, the link you posted (www.energytribune.com) contains several articles about how nuclear power is a wonderful power source, so safe, and much better than all the renewable sources, but I personally didn't see any reference in those articles to the government subsidies that nuke power demands (although I didn't read them all).

The link also promotes oil and gas as potentially clean energy sources, while listing all the negatives and none of the positives of wind, solar, and other green alternatives.

Could it be that their main concern about wind power and other alternatives is that those other sources might compete for fed subsidies with nukes, oil and gas?

Oh, what a coincidence! Michael Economides is from the University of Houston, 90 miles from STP, the South Texas Project nuclear facility, which has recently applied to the US government for 2 new nuclear units. AND he's a managing partner of a petroleum consulting firm.

According to the Austin Chronicle ("Will the Nuke Mushroom?", "The (2005) Energy Policy Act contained $13 billion in new subsidies, tax breaks, and incentives to build new nukes; and from 1947 to 1999, the nuclear industry was given more than $115 billion in subsidies, 25 times more than subsidies for renewable energy..."

Plus the federal government assumes part of the financial responsibility for safety risks, acting as insurance company for the nuke plants in case of accidents.

And of course fed subsidies for oil and gas are through the roof.

The other author at www.energytribune.com is Robert Bryce who recently wrote a book called, "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence'".

I think these two are not exactly my idea of really forward thinking individuals.

god damned free flowing government funded wind and oceans!