It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if we'll ever get over the hump of the looming energy crisis. I'm not for an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, but I ho

It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if we'll ever get over the hump of the looming energy crisis. I'm not for an all-eggs-in-one-basket approach, but I honestly don't think there's going to be a solution to the energy crisis that doesn't include some form of nuclear energy production (fission or fusion). For fulfilling high load near instant demand on power only nuclear (and hydroelectric where can you build a dam) seems to compare to oil and coal in that regard. Solar doesn't cut it at least with our battery technology and our climate (some parts of the US only get around 150 sunny days a year like Minnesota). Wind looks to be good for helping with voltage regulation but like solar I bet that in areas like Minnesota it won't work (Kansas? Sure, we get plenty of wind from the north or south depending on the season). And biofuels don't look good to me since it becomes a choice between eating or powering your TV set (eating always wins). So, nuclear will have to be the backbone of a new energy economy if we're to advance the standard of living for developing nations and to maintain the standard of living for the developed nations as is. Anything less than that will probably wind up forcing everyone back down to 19th or 18th century levels of productivity and standards of living.