Wind, Solar Energy Supplemental Sources; Not Replacements To The Editor: We hear lots of talk about “alternative,” renewable energy. Webster’s definition of the word alternative is: “Something which can be chosen instead.” I suspect the “Greens” and the president have this definition in mind as they embrace wind and solar energy initiatives. But that’s unrealistic. With the current state of technology, these are at best supplemental sources not replacements for the 24/7 on-demand energy we need to keep the country going. They are intermittent sources, since the wind doesn’t always blow when and how much we want, and the sun only shines part of the time. More work needs to be done in the energy-storage realm for these two sources. We are way down on the learning curve. The present reality: Only 20 to 40 percent of the total rated generating capacity is available. For example, a wind-turbine or solar-panel farm rated at a million kilowatts can only be expected to deliver between 200,000 and 400,000 kilowatts on average. As a supplement to our fossil-fuel/nuclear bulk 24/7 sources, they will have a role to play, perhaps increasing as technology allows, but it’s unlikely they’ll be true alternative sources for bulk demand by the above definition. On the “green” scene the president is running a jobs program not an energy program so he can claim the green jobs “created” to his credit toward the number one issue on voter’s minds. He recently stated he’s for an “all-of-the-above” energy policy, proclaiming we need to tap all sources of energy domestically or from friendly sources. Really? But does that include all fossil fuels, in particular, coal? His charge to the EPA post-election 2013 will be to lower the boom on CO2 emissions especially at coal-fired power plants (they generate about 50 percent of our electricity) driving the cost of electricity through the roof. And what about the Keystone pipeline he has nixed? And, the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf and ANWR? And does he plan a “full court press” on new nuclear and even fossil fuel plants to meet our growing energy needs? These plus Keystone are great job producers. According to the government’s Energy Information Agency (EIA) Electricity Supply and Demand Fact Sheet our present average national capacity margin (the amount of electric power we’re capable of generating vs. demand) is about 15.6 percent. This “safety margin” could disappear quickly should some event, such as a major shift to electric cars emerge. This would transfer huge amounts of energy demand from gasoline to the power grid, in short order overwhelming capacity. Indeed if the president is really serious about pushing electric cars he would be on a crash program to build as much generating capacity a.s.a.p. to meet this new demand. Today some regions of the country in the hot summer have marginal capacity. Brownouts or rolling blackouts can occur. It appears that Obama’s inconsistent “policies” are not about energy independence and demand but appeasing his environmental left while fostering the illusion he’s a job creator ahead of the election. Obama claims we must look to the future (not the past) energy-wise thus his green initiatives. But if he doesn’t also look to the present and very near-term and focus on energy independence and capacity we may not have much of a future. Reliability of supply and low-cost energy are essential for a robust, globally-competitive United States. President Obama’s policies have us heading in the opposite direction. His re-election would spell serious trouble for the nation on several fronts besides energy. Not the least of which is his willingness to bypass Congress and our Constitution using executive orders and regulations. Meanwhile GOP wannabes are tearing each other apart in the nomination battles instead of focusing on their real opponent, President Obama. The Dems must be dancing in the street. BOB LOVELL Court House