Wanted to say I enjoyed reading today's editorial. I have been trying to find several energy alternatives that would have lower impacts on the environment. I worked at an electric generating nuclear plant in the 1990's and learned that we were tops in the power generation field. Since I was from a computer oriented manufacturing environment where output should equal close to input (like 95% first quality goods), it surprised me to find out the energy output at a nuclear plant is somewhere between 40% and 60% of the energy released by the radioactive isotopes. But...with that said, nuclear power generation is still the more economical than coal and natural gas. The plant I was at even pumped water uphill during low peaks and released it as hydro power during peak times.

This year, I research putting up some generating capacity on my house (in eastern NC where the sun shines a lot.) To hook into the grid was too cost prohibitive. It still got me learning about many alternatives. My favorite to date is the heating/cooling system where you have a closed water system that goes into the ground a certain distance and it loops back out and circulates the water to get a cooling/heating effect.

As far as worrying about daylight, wind, etc. always being there... That's where you build in differing systems that cover for each other. We must develop good battery storage systems that can release the energy when other means of producing are not there.

Again, I am glad to see others in my industry focusing on conservation.