I have got to tell you that the article linked to here
is very long and takes a good while to get through. Then, after you have read the whole thing, you still need time to meditate on all of the points. But, after doing that, feel free to comment on some of the ideas that Vinod Khosla outlines and the points that he makes. I believe that some of what he has to say is true and has merit, but can't quite agree with everything. Here is a good point: "every coal-fired power plant is a ticking slow bomb. Knowing this, we need solutions that work - now." Another: "Finally, I am a big believer in a very diverse set of technology bets." But, is clean coal, nuclear energy and solar thermal power really the best answer for the long-term good of the world, as he appears to suggest? I think that what he is trying to say is that they make the most sense economically at this time, and that we need to focus on what the economy of the world is capable of... and he suggests that what works in Germany and America won't necessarily work in India
and China. Makes sense, right? But, what are the chances that nuclear power or clean coal will be what India or China ends up with? Not real high, right? And, what works there is not necessarily what is going to work in America either. Do I have a better solution? Ummm... no, not just one. As he said, we need many. But, I can't see the collective world's governments all agreeing on one technology for the future, either. Oh, yeah, I'm not holding my breath for cold fusion, either.
Wind power where that's plentiful, solar where there is lots of sun, wave power where there is lots of water, biodiesel
where there is good soil, the list goes on. Anybody else have any comments?
[Source: Huffington Post]