redblueamerica.com

The New York Times has an article about a "little-known but promising" form of solar power that uses sunlight to create steam power.

And it appears that "solar thermal" power offers some real advantages:

After a decade of no activity, two prototype solar thermal plants were recently opened in the United States, with a capacity that could power several big hotels, neon included, on the Las Vegas Strip, about 20 miles north of here. Another 10 power plants are in advanced planning in California, Arizona and Nevada.

On sunny afternoons, those 10 plants would produce as much electricity as three nuclear reactors, but they can be built in as little as two years, compared with a decade or longer for a nuclear plant.

In fact, experts say enough sunshine hits the deserts of the Southwest that such plants could theoretically power the entire United States. But that is a far-off dream, since it would require big new transmission cables.

Hey, I have an idea: Why don't we build those big new transmission cables?

I know, I know: Even with subsidies, this solar thermal power is and will be a little more expensive than coal power.

But given that our national security and our environment are tangled up in our energy choices, wouldn't that expense be worth it? I think so.

There will also, I expect, be some criticism from the greener-than-thou types that all these solar plants will clutter up the pristine desert landscape -- and I'm sympathetic to that argument. But life is about choices, and returning to a pre-historic state really isn't one of them.