"Paul F. Dietz" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote:

'Most likely be paying more' makes me one of those doomsayers?

Didn't say you were, now did I?

The presence of such ambiguity being why you got a question mark.

And one decade = short term fluctuation?

Sure. Look at the 'energy crisis', for example.

It's about twice as long as the average politician plans.
It's also at least half as long as the amount I'd need again
for my 'Most likely be paying more' to turn out right.
Of course just because something has been going roughly one way
for a decade or so there's no given it will stay that way.
However I see nothing likely to make a significant difference
in the /cheaper/ direction for at least the next decade or so.

The power infrastructure is /big/ and any improvements are going
to have a proportionally big lag from decision to implementation.
At present I haven't seen even seen decisions being made that will
be make /much/ difference - although there are plenty of half-hearted
efforts in .gov documents that could make some difference if well
implemented (even if they do seem rather schizophrenic in places).