Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Wow, that was really a bunch of garbage. I'm embarrassed for everyone involved.
I did find one little shining nugget in there. It was Dr. Dewan pointing out that if we can't find energy cheaper than coal then we should not bother.
I keep hearing from the global warming alarmists on how we should tax this and subsidize that because coal is "bad". Well, it would be real easy to convince people to stop burning coal if offered something cheaper. Telling people that they must choose higher energy costs or higher taxes (which just go to subsidize those expensive energy producers) is doomed to fail. What will get people off of coal is something cheaper, not just something "better". Especially when "better" is defined as something that will not contribute to global warming in a time when people fear being able to pay the bills more than global warming, terrorism, or another nuclear accident.
Even though it is a bunch of garbage at least we can call this a "win" since people are talking about nuclear power, no?