Writing at offgrid.com, Nick Rosen discusses micro-nuclear plants, which, the story says, could power 20,000 homes for 10 years or more.

The devices, said to be only a few feet across, would be buried well underground, have no moving parts, and be powered by low-energy uranium that would be difficult to enrich into nuclear weapons. All the steam, to run turbines, and waste would be contained underground.

The idea was developed at Los Alamos. Hyperion Power, which has leased the technology, says its first unit will be installed in 2013. The devices will go for about $25 million each.

On the NYT's Greenbiz blog, an entry says that pro-nuclear interests are trying to rebrand the industry, in part by seeking ways to make the plants more good looking.

I kid you not.

So let's take a poll. How many of you would be more pro nuclear if it was painted green? Never mind all that poisonous-for-practically-ever waste, or the massive subsidies that would be needed to build the plants. You just want them to look nicer.

OK, so now we have the guy we wanted in the White House. So what is the outlook for clean tech?

Martin Lamonica, green-tech writer at CNet, surveys the landscape. I am always informed by Martin's writing.

[added] Greenbiz.com covers some of the same ground, but also looks at how voters reacted to clean-energy referenda nationwide.

Shannon Koenig and I met this morning to talk about conservation. We met through Sustainable Arlington, a grassroots effort to promote planet-friendly consciousness and practices in our town.

The meeting was an outgrowth of previous discussions, but today's topic was mine. I'm very drawn to gadgetry and other technology, but there is absolutely no question that the No. 1 priority for anyone interested in sustainability should be conservation. Just take less. Use less. Spend less. It offers a bigger payoff than solar or wind or geothermal. We will need all those, but before we spend a penny on any of them, we should wring every bit of waste and profligacy out of our current practices.

The auction last Thursday brought in more than $38 million altogether, and the state intends to spend its portion on energy-saving efforts.

Here's more from the Globe's Erin Ailworth.

Another in a series of miniprofiles of sustainability-minded people who are working to reduce humankind's footprint on the planet.

LARRY CHRETIEN, 47, Quincy
Executive director, Energy Consumers Alliance of New England (in Mass., they're known as Mass Energy; in Rhode Island, they're People’s Power and Light)

Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”

Great analogy, from a great column.

I've heard it said several times that no matter who wins the election, we're going to have a cap-and-trade system that will put a price on carbon emissions, because both candidates support it. But I struggle to believe that McCain will actually be willing to see energy prices rise through an act of government — even if it would begin to reshape the nation's energy use away from fossil fuels and toward renewable sources.

Of apparently more certain agreement are both camps' endorsement of nuclear.

It's laughable to hear the party of Freedom Fries and other sneers and smears cite France as a paragon, but that is, of course, what happens in the realm of nuclear energy. With both candidates saying they support nuclear-plant development, it's a fair question to ask: What is France's experience?

They have almost 60 plants nationwide. Only the US has more: 104.

All the plants are owned by Electricité de France, the state-owned utility. (Source.) France decided to go big on nuclear after the '73 oil shock, and the plants were backed by the financial guarantees of the French government.

Using Swedish technology, a utility plant in Spremberg, Germany, near the Polish border, has begun capturing the carbon released by the burning of coal for electricity.

First, the lignite coal is being burned in pure oxygen, which makes the effluent cleaner — still carbon-laden but with less sulphur, mercury, and other elements typical to coal burning.

The effluent is then compressed until it is liquid, and injected underground into naturally occurring caverns.

My question — not buttressed by scientific expertise — has always been whether the holes deep in the ground can accommodate the huge volumes of CO2 produced by continuous coal burning. There are other questions, too, of course: What about plants that aren't located near underground caverns — do you truck the liquid CO2 to where they are? Would the process work with dirtier coal? How much energy is required to produce the pure oxygen, to compress the CO2, and to pump it underground?