Use currently available efficient technology to replace fossil fuels. by Paradigm Shift

Looks like my longer comment disappeared again! I wanted to clarify whether you are talking about fast or thermal reactors. Also to say that a proposal has been made for boron propulsion for vehicles that would eliminate hydrocarbons.

argh social change!, I need to spell check when i type. :)

Good Start! It seems to me a grandiose theory of change. In your proposal your proposed the waste produced from nuclear will be small and collected safely, however, what about in Developing countries ? As you mentioned they need a lot of energy for their development pursuits, and they development following the business as usual may become reason of great emission and pollution in coming years. The governance system (Command- and - Control system)in these countries is not very mature, and collection can become a big problem. Also, think people in these developed countries are scattered in vast geographic areas. The centralized small nuclear power plants, will demand billion of dollars to deliver that electricity to these customers. This will be very expensive! There are other options which are cheap and distributed. What do you think ?

@tominga, thank you for your proposal and comments. I look forward to reading it in greater detail, but certainly agree with the need social/societal change regardless of which technologies you want to implement.

An interim solution in areas where solar/wind won't work and nuclear is not feasible due to social instability is multifuel gas turbine systms as described in the link below. LINK: http://www.ge-energy.com/content/multimedia/_files/downloads/Fuel%20Flexibility%20White%20Paper.pdf GE does a great job of discussing the impact of each fuel choice.

This technology being studied at Stanford and "suprise" MIT could give us the wide range electric vehicle. LINK: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/wireless-vehicle-charge-020112.html I think an all encompassing strategy like the one I propose above can allow use to both generate more than enough power for future needs while reducing the negative impact on the ecosystem.

Per the EPA (as of 2012 - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html) here's a rank-order list of GHG emission sources: 32% Electricity, 28% Transportation, 20% Industry, 10% Commercial/Residential, 10% Agriculture. Unfortunately, we are hooked on fossil fuel for the near-mid term. Hybrid car sales are growing but still represent a small part of all cars and trucks on the road. Mr. Boone Pickens' vision is to fuel commercial trucks with natural gas - a good idea. Then there is the issue of energy distribution. Wind turbine energy distribution requires very precise implementation/apparatus. Tesla cars has done a great job by recently completing its first coast-to-coast recharging station route (with charge times as little as 38 minutes). Imagine the infrastructure cost for Tesla to network 48 states. We have over a 500-year supply of coal. Has there ever been a hypothesis proven or disproven that converting current electric plants to "clean coal" makes sense (buying time to build a new nuclear plant infrastructure?) I'd have to assess CO2 differential between fossil fuel generation and clean coal, e.g.,carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds. I checked the EPA's "clean energy programs" and there are no clean coal projects cited (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/index.html). On the other hand, the Department of Energy has been proactive on clean coal (http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/futuregen-20). Prevailing winds/winds aloft carry mega-tons of CO2 transcontinental. Therefore, real cooperation is required. Plausible scenario - high emission countries with vast shorelines use wave, tidal and ocean energy technologies, solar, wind. Other GHG-friendly energy generation is captured among these GHG producers and a shared distribution infrastructure is utilized between/among friendly countries (yes, sounds good, but geo-political obstacles will always exist). Thank you. Mark

This theme has great relevance. The below points may add bit more value 1. How far the cost of replacing existing infrastructure can be an accepted framework for economies 2. Bit of meaningful data crunching to show the actual cost and the possible impacts can bring some value

I like the framework and the idea of social change, as well as the notion of using what works best for particular areas. There is no one size fits all solution. I agree. However, I'm having trouble getting around the nuclear waste issue. Yes, less waste may be produced, but nuclear waste is still being produced and will still have to be stored with extensive safety measures. I don't see where that is a positive. You have the elevated costs of building out the plant coupled with the cost of waste and a downward curve on energy prices. It doesn't make for a good scenario. Solar, wind, small scale hydro, geothermal, and storage technologies don't have the nuclear waste issue and all have specific areas where they are maximized. Figuring out how to effectively integrate these with social change may be a more beneficial option in the long-term than nuclear.

I don't understand what you are proposing, aside from 'everything'.

We agree with many of the statements made here, that a paradigm shift could solve much of our current problems without new technologies. That said, this is more of a policy statement than a proposal.No real action items are identified that address any of the social, political or international barriers to this shift. This is a more of a statement of what the ideal solution should be, not an actionable proposal. In a future proposal, please specify specific areas of emphasis, types of approaches, funding, and create clear and thorough analysis. There can be large, direct and positive impacts created by the ideas outlined in your proposal, but the how needs to be elaborated on and flushed out.