By that I mean that Nevada and Wyoming don't have a whole lot of revenue generated, except by whores, gambling and sheep. Not that I necessarily have anything against those industries, but I think that there is an underutilized resource, energy.
Wyoming is amazingly windy and Nevada has a whole lot of sunny deserts. I think that an investment in solar and wind farms in areas with little population could be a major boon in times of economic uncertainty, and all other times.
I was watching a show about Germany and there strategy for becoming more energy independent. The legislature passed a bill that guaranteed people who put energy into the grid twice the money that it costs to take out of the grid. So for anyone who wanted to invest in putting solar or wind generators on their houses they would start making a profit in just a few years, and continue making money until 2020 or so when the bills life will end. The program showed solar panels everywhere, just off the highways, on houses, and in pasture land with sheep grazing in between the panels.
I don't know what the problems would be with transmission, but with the new president and the money that he wants to pump into "green" jobs the infrastructure could be built.
I just think that now would be a good time to change the foundations of our economy, since it's broken. I was talking to an economist friend of mine and she said that 70% of our economy depends on internal consumer spending. With that much of our economy based in one sector it anything that disrupts the consumption hurts a lot. A more diversified economy seems to make sense, and why not diversify in part with energy exports.
It just works on so many levels.
3 comments:
Put Idaho in there while you're at it but substitute nuclear power. Idaho is growing more and more to become a center of nuclear research and energy production. Not only do we have one of the foremost reseach facilities for nuclear energy in the nation, we now are getting a huge uranium enrichment plant outside of Idaho Falls. I spoke with a representative of the company and they say Idaho was chosen, mainly for the public's friendly views towards nuclear power and power generation in general. This view gives Idaho a huge advantage. With a supportive public, companies can move in and build reactors and such in Idaho and ship the power to areas where energy generation is not as politically feasible. Several plants are being planned right now. It's ironic to know that the environmental movement actually has helped Idaho attract such plants by protesting them in the states that actually need the electricity.
Nuclear power is an interesting subject. I often get to hear a lot about it because of my brother-in-law who is a nuclear engineer.
The primary reason that there has been a resurgence in the nuclear industry seems to be that it is seen as one of the few immediately viable alternatives to hydrocarbon energy production, and hence a valid source of non global warming emitting energy.
Personally I think that it would be great if we could just use solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy, but it just wont work right now. Nukes provide a great stop-gap measure until the technology gets us to the sustainable resource level. Especially if we revised antiquated laws that prohibit the reconstitution of spent fuel rods into more fuel like they do in some European nations.
John, I couldn't agree more. It'd be great if we had some magic new technology that would solve all our problems but in the meantime all we realistically have is nuclear power. It's environmentally friendly and has come a long way since its invention. The new reactors produce a lot less waste and much of that waste can be reprocessed if Washington would get out of the way. I'm tickled, though, that the states that need it the most have political situation where much of the public is anti-energy. That allows states that are more conservative to pick up the slack and provide these necessary resources (at a healthy profit, mind you.)
Post a Comment