Hi, I think that we need to think about the fact that energy costs are highly subsidized and so when you compare the price of a kilowatt of energy now as being 12 cents or say that coal is OK we need to recognize wat the real costs are. Nuclear power is a dead end, most nuclear plants around the world are being shut down since the Fukushima disaster in Japan has made it clear that there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy, and we also must realize that there is no such thing as clean coal energy. Some things that are wrong with coal is that it destroys the envirornment we live in, and such things as mountaintop removal are needed to get the coal out of the ground, but mountaintop removal is not a sustainable practice and has already destroyed hwta used to be some of the most beautiful places n earth such as the Appilachian mountains, as well as being a major cause of cancer both in the local areas where it is done as well as the spread of air pollution which is so bad in some places that people cannot live near the coal fired power plants without getting cancer quickly, and even thse of us living far away from those areas are being negativly affected by breathing the air that is contaminated by coal pollution , as well as eating food that is poisened by the pollution. As the economic problems that are created by the fiat currency system are spreading and will only continue to get worse, it gets harder and harder to guard the transmission lines for electricity, as is shown by the major problems that are happening in England, where the electrical lines to keep the trains running, are being stolen for the copper and metal content in them, as they are worth so much to thieves that they will risk performing illegal acts to get the scrap metal to steal. This kind of thing has gone on for years in third world countries, but now that Britain and the USA are themselves being downgraded to third world status by the financial crisis brought on by the fiat money system, it will only get worse. The solution is to localize production, and by making our electrical appliances more efficinet, we can use less electricity, while by making our generators more efficient, we can produce more electricity. Then we can set a real world price on the electricity and use that for a base price for the energy backed currency, where th ebase price reflects the amount of work done by an UNSKILLED worker in one day or one hour or whatever unit of time is used. Of course skilled workers will still be paid more than unskilled workers, but at least this way unskilled workers will have something to work at, and there are lots of ways to put together teams of people to work together to make the gneration of electricity more efficient. It does not all need to come from human power, but human pwoer can give us a baseline to measure by, as oppsed to nonsustainable ways of power generation like coal, oil or nuclear power.
In the 1930’s Buckminster Fuller calculated that one person could only turn out about a third of what we calculate today as someone being able to generate, and the improvement is due to more efficient generators. As more people turn their attention to the problem, more efficient generators will be invented and used, and teams of people working together will compete to see who can generate the most power, and the most efficent inventions will be used by more people, who will then improve on even those greater efficiencys. I have many ideas to improve the amount of power that can be produced, and there are many other people who can come up with better ideas than I have , so this is not something that needs to be calculated by just todays numbers, but it’s something that can be improved on. Some links about mountaintop coal removal can be found if you Google it, and for those who are still in denial about global warming just contact an insurance company that insures ski resorts . See if they are also in denial about the need for more artificial snow creation, and see also how the sea is open in the northen regions where ships have been seeking a northwest passage for the last few hundred years. There was never a northwest passage before because of too much ice to sail near the north pole, but now ships can travel near the north pole because the ice is gone. The Marshall Islands and other south Pacific Islands are being threatend by rising sea levels as well, due to the melting of glaciers, and although I believe that the warming is actually caused more from de-forestation and clear-cutting trees, there is still plenty of problems with coal , nuclear and oil to the point where we cannot rely on them, even if it is only the rising costs in dollars of using them.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mountain ... =firefox-a
