Your arguments are based on current costs while discussing the future. Failing to note how the utilities industry over shadows alternative power. You need to look at it as how to make alternative power the norm. With that, you are aware that power consumption by consumers needs to be addressed. You said something of offense: "So ask your Green friends this question"
My response? I'll email Bush and some in the DOE right away!
When discussing the application of technology to provide energy to consumers, economics defines feasibility. It makes no sense to propose fielding exotic alternative energy production systems if the cost per MW is outrageously high.
Hey I'm all for cheap, reliable and eco friendly energy, whatever flavor.
So am I. But most of the proposed alternatives are neither cost effective nor capable of significant production.
And, as I mentioned before, some have other environmental costs. Hydroelectric is condemned by the greens for interfering with fish life-cycles and altering the landscape of watersheds. Wind farms are now condemned for killing birds (not to mention the high-society liberals who don't want offshore wind farms spoiling their scenic views). Hydrogen fuel cells are based on a negative-sum energy equation. I haven't heard much about tidal generators lately, but I'm sure the ocean activists will successfully block those if they become popular ideas again. Solar boilers will, no doubt, be criticized for encroaching on the habitat of some desert tortoise or kangaroo rat. Etc.
Why centralize power...?
It's centralized because that was--and still is--the most efficient and cost-effective way of producing power. The idea of distributed generation is nice, but currently not practical on a large scale (nor will it be for many years to come).
You need to look at it as how to make alternative power the norm.
And how do you propose that? There are only two ways: free market pressure and competition (which almost always works) and government mandate (which rarely ever works). Even hybrid vehicles like the Insight and the Prius--with all their government tax credits and incentives--are produced at a loss by their respective manufacturers. They are manufactured for two reasons only: to satisfy governmental regulatory demands, and as public relations propaganda for their makers.
power consumption by consumers needs to be addressed
And how do you propose that? As civilization advances, demand for energy increases.
You said something of offense: "So ask your Green friends this question"
That was a rhetorical statement. It wasn't directed specifically at you.
I'll email Bush and some in the DOE right away!
I'm no supporter of Bush when it comes to his domestic spending policies. His crap about pouring billions of tax dollars into making a fuel cell automobile was nothing more than shameless pandering to the Left.
----
Don't get me wrong: I would love to see inexpensive, environmentally-friendly energy sources. However, at this time, the only viable technology is nuclear power. Perhaps new alternative energy sources will become more technologically *and* economically feasible in the future, but we aren't there yet, and I don't see it happening for a long time to come. There are still many hurdles imposed by physics that must be overcome.