The SE US has seen the recent re-opening of at least three fairly large coal mines. All of the mines were existing ones that were closed down when extraction became "unprofitable" a few decades ago.

While part of the reason that they're being opened up is that rising oil prices make coal competitive again, a secondary reason is that there simply isn't enough oil to meet energy demand "at current production costs." Note that "isn't enough" here has nothing to do with the size of the fields the oil comes from. It's the rate at which petro products can be produced by existing refineries and other processing facilities.

There have been virtually no new refineries and no new petro or coal fueled power generating plants built in the US in several decades, just as there have been no new nuclear generating plants, for the simple reason that the economics of producing the products, fuels or energy, with any available method doesn't matter, since the process costs/benefits cannot override the staggering costs of complying with all the varied regulations imposed on new installations of either kind.

A certain level of regulation on design and operation of these kinds of facilities is needed; but as long as anyone with a pencil can file repeated new demands for revision of "impact statements," and as long as legislatures accept the NIMBY objections of every possible constituent, there will be no technological progress in providing new and more "environment friendly" energy resources - or in providing existing energy levels with lower environmental impact.

I wish the Brits luck with their new coal mine and generating plant, but the last significant new power station announced in the US started submitting compliance statements about 8 years ago, and expects an additional 12 - 14 years before getting an approval to start construction.

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating lots of new refineries and/or new coal or nuke generators. I'm merely observing that most of the ideas expounded here for cleaner energy at anything approaching current usage ain't gonna happen because the necessary plants can't be built (in the US).

The power that comes out of the tap to charge the batteries in your new "electro-commuter" vehicle does not get there by magic. Producing a large fleet of "rechargeable" vehicles represents a transfer from local consumption of petro-fuel to consumption of generating plant fuel, and the generating plants do not have the capacity to make a major transfer of the magnitude needed to have a significant effect.

Kansas alone already has 17 - 20 ethanol plants, making bio-fuel. Recent model vehicles can burn fuels with 20% ethanol, and there is currently enough bio-process capacity to supply nearly that much to the adjacent few states. Plants here, however, have already begun to run into the same sort of regulatory swamp that engulfs other fuel and energy processes, and it's reasonable to question whether "politics" will permit significant additional expansion - if/when higher percentages of biofuel can be used.

John