And when nuclear finally comes on line it becomes a major hurdle to a more widespread adoption of efficiency/variable renewables because of the baseload business model it carries within. Do we really need so called baseload power so badly or do we just want the lights to go on whenever we flick a switch? If the latter is our choice, then we have more than plenty of alternatives to both nuclear as well as coal power. But first, someone has to tell Obama that nuclear (and/or 'clean' coal, for that matter) and renewables can't be put to work together on a larger scale because of their very different technical and economic features.

Without a completely 'true' evaluation, you have to quantify the OIL/COAL contribution, you cannot reach any valid conclusions about energy. The term, "marginalized externality" covers most of the back-end damages. Damages which are being hidden, dismissed, or marginalized (in the social sense) cannot be figured into models with names like; Coal consumption, Gas consumption, commercial energy consumption. All the while dismissing a number of true costs, damages, and negative effects.

Even the 'best buy' simulation takes the current energy cost without any of it's hidden costs, tax breaks, or handouts. Although I agree with any good and prudent measure, we have to dig a bit to find the true costs. Or, we can buy the greener line and just go along with them.

TIA

Richard