Not since President Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed at the White House has there been as much hype for renewable energy sources as there is now. Congress once again is pushing for passage of legislation mandating a "renewable portfolio."

South Carolina is wisely letting the free market determine whether renewables will catch on. But 25 states have adopted renewable energy requirements, committing nearly half of our country's population to obtaining as much as 25 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other "green" sources by 2020.

Increasing our use of renewable energy is a worthwhile goal. But if we allow the heavy hand of government to mandate its use, we're setting solar and wind energy up to fail. While they have a place on the electric grid, the notion they can replace "base-load" capacity from coal and nuclear power is irresponsible and dangerous. Renewables provide just 3 percent of the nation's energy, and the Department of Energy forecasts that share will reach 4.2 percent by 2030.

Wind power has appeal not because it's clean, but because tax breaks and subsidies for wind are now so valuable for wind-farm owners.

Over the past decade, large-scale wind farms have been built in several states. But at best the wind blows 40 percent of the time. Wind is so unpredictable that electricity shortages have hobbled businesses and industries in both Texas and California, the two states with the most wind-energy capacity, mainly because the wind turbines were operating at only 5 percent of capacity. Also, high-wind areas, where the costs of wind power are lowest, tend to be far from population centers. This creates a need for miles of transmission lines.

Despite substantial federal and state support, wind power churns out less than 1 percent of the nation's electricity, solar energy's contribution is one-hundredth of 1 percent. By comparison, coal and nuclear power provide more than 70 percent of America's electricity.

This hasn't stopped federal and state policymakers from climbing on the renewable bandwagon. If government subsidies lead to unrealistic reliance on renewables, the result will be terrible. What happens when reality sets in and policymakers conclude desperate measures are needed to make up for an energy shortfall? Now is the time to take stock of the situation before it's too late.
Two routes need to be followed to achieve energy security. First, we should develop ways to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. Injecting CO2 into salt caverns or depleted oil and gas fields needs to be tested on a large-scale to determine whether coal has a future in a carbon-constrained world. This makes tremendous economic sense because the United States has 270 years' worth of coal reserves.

Second, we should build the next generation of nuclear plants. We must have new plants to meet the growing demand for electricity, which is projected to rise 50 percent by 2030. Nuclear power is carbon-free and produces no air pollution. Electric companies are gearing up to build a new generation of nuclear plants using advanced technologies. It's expected that about eight new nuclear plants will begin operating by 2015.

Nuclear plants generate electricity more than 90 percent of the time and take up much less land than wind farms.

Jesse Ausubel, a professor at Rockefeller University in New York, calculates that in terms of watts per acre disturbed, nuclear power has a huge environmental advantages over wind and solar. Wind farms covering 462 square miles are needed to produce as much energy as one 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant - and would produce electricity at double the cost.

Likewise, a solar plant would require 90 square miles plus land for energy storage and retrieval to equal the power output of a large nuclear plant.
What a triumph for common sense if Congress would support nuclear power and clean-coal technology with funding for large-scale demonstrations of carbon capture and storage. Ensuring adequate electricity for the future should have nothing to do with partisan politics.

Instead, the House of Representatives has approved $18 billion in tax incentives for renewable energy sources, a move that would do little to reduce carbon emissions or dependence on foreign oil. It's time for federal and state policymakers to adopt energy policies that serve the public interest.