Two recent newspaper articles explore the range of tough energy choices we face.

In the Prince George Free Press, Victor Bowman discusses the pros and cons of hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, hydrogen and nuclear power. His conclusion — without picking a favorite:

If we are to continue our way of life, even in a reduced manner, there are going to be some difficult choices to be made.  They won’t be easy, but if we do not make them, they will be made for us.

In a story in today's New York Times, the challenge for one community shifts from a philosophical one to something very real. Fort Collins, Colorado, is facing not one but two tough energy-related choices:

Two proposed energy projects are exposing the hard place that communities like this across the country are likely to confront in years to come as the tangled nuances of thinking globally come back to bite…

One involves crowd-pleasing, feel-good solar power, and the other is a uranium mine, which has a base of support here about as big as a pinkie.

But even the solar project has its drawbacks:

The solar project, called AVA Solar, plans to use a new manufacturing process developed at Colorado State University here to make panels for electricity generation, and will use cadmium — a hazardous metal linked to cancer — as part of the industrial process.

Disposal of nuclear waste quickly comes up in any discussion about nuclear power. What about the health risks of cadmium, both to factory workers and groundwater?

Collectively, it's going to take an open mind and a commitment to truly "clean" technologies to see our way out of the mess we're in.

Carbon Neutral Journal's choices are brought to you by Jorgensen Associates.

Popularity: 13%