My cynical side says that if you include large hydro, suddenly the energy mix doesn't look all that bad, and the incentive to push and subsidize "approved" renewables would be reduced.

For example, my local power company only includes hydroelectric facilities that are 30 MW or less as "official" renewables. If I calculate right (35 percent of 12 percent) these little dams amount to about 4 percent of the total energy mix.

Large hydroelectric facilities, on the other hand, amount to 22 percent of the total energy mix, only slightly less than what is provided by nuclear. If you were to add that to the other renewables, the total would be 34 percent, over a third. Add no-CO2 nuclear to that, and it turns out PG & E , right now, delivers 58 percent of its energy from sources that don't generate CO2, or any other atmospheric waste.

Suddenly, it all doesn't look so urgent any more, does it? Better change the definitions a bit.

Note that most of the rest of the mix is natural gas, and only 1 percent is coal. Of course, these numbers would be very different in other parts of the country.

As an aside, Canada gets over 60 percent of its power from hydroelectric. Add nuclear and other renewables, and it goes up to 75 percent.