A Controversial Proposal

> influential environmental lobby will not endorse a growing reliance
> on Nuclear power, nor on the further use of coal. They'll back wind
> and solar power, but not hydro power. The President knows that solar
> and wind are not robust enough to replace oil. To us ordinary folk,

Premise #6.) All power generation methods costing less than XXX are
fully exploited before XXX is implemented.

Assuming that all the political foundation was in place as described.
Nothing would happen until a profit could be made because your whole
idea seems based on taxation structure. Without profits there are no
taxes. In order for the cost of energy to rise to a level that SPS
become immediately profitable and therefore taxable, wind, solar, and
nuclear will have to reach maximum realistic exploitation. By the way
the new pebble bed reactor design looks to much more environmentally
sound. Other nations besides the US are starting to use this design. I
wouldn't toss nuclear out quite yet. There is quite a bit of untapped
wind energy yet to be exploited.

Also several states, being lead by Texas, have enacted a lot of the
taxation structure that you have proposed. There is nothing that would
stop a Texas energy company from considering SPS except that there are
currently lower cost minimal pollution alternatives to use as offsets.

I think that what you have described is already under way. But it will
take a hundred years.

Mitchell James
www.InnerTransit.org (Web based Collaborative Engineering)