You have got to be kidding me. Tax our economy back to the Stone Age for a bulls**t scam. Meanwhile, watch the explosion of industry in China and India. It's almost like they are deliberately trying to sabotage the US and its citizenry. This, if passed, will destroy this country as we know it. Prepare for sky high rates on heating your house, filling your car, and feeding your family. Meanwhile, the fat cats in DC get to take even more of our money as they flit around the nation in their private jets and limosuines. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/us/politics/01energycnd.html?_r=1&hp
Just go all nuclear. probably cleaner than current energy and infinitely more efficient than wind and solar energy. going back to the stone ages for sources of energy will bring us through the future? hardly, wind and solar energy is a total scam. Its prohibitively expensive to set up a system that will generate what is required for the country..let alone a home.
Personally, I think we should increase our country's dependence on oil so we can continue our addiction to the only natural resource the Middle East offers. I actually love relying on their political and economic stability to keep the engine of our economy running. Not to mention we get to continue to invest in 19th Century technology in a 21st Century economy. Holla back if you with me! -Pop
Totally ridiculous. We are sitting on a virtual gold mine of oil, natural gas, and coal, yet our government and the enviro-movement won't let us touch it because of the global warming scam.
I think I'd be a proponent of more nuclear power. It's a sustainable, essentially unlimited source of power and the melt-down risks seem vanishingly small. The waste is a bit of a problem, but it can be contained pretty safely and effectively and there's a lot of underground area to turn into shielded waste holding areas. I also wonder whether nanotechnology, in the future, can rearrange the actual neutrons and protons of the waste isotopes into new ones that are stable and not radioactive.
Nuclear energy is the future. What is surprising to figure is this plan basically assumes a steady power consumption instead of the need to develop more powerful methods of energy production. While its all noble and great to use available resources like light and wind to make energy...the bottom line is that it doesn't make that much to begin with. Solar cells are extremely costly and don't put out that much energy...while its a good adjunct to energy, for it to produce 25% of our energy when in all likelyhood the world will develop new technologies in production that will require more energy will bring us to a future of brownouts and running out of energy. Manufacturing will be forced to run on certain days of the week to save energy.
What you're not accounting for here is that solar power technology will also benefit from technology's accelerating development. But for that to happen, there have to be people working on that technology, which requires money.
Well, we have to start somehwere with a meaninful debate on weaning us off of oil & coal. I don't care how they wrap it, just so it gets done. Granted, this is an idiotic start, but let's get the ball rolling and do what we can NOW to make some serious changes. The last thing we need to do is putz around until it's near too late (as we usually do).
That would all be nice to find out for the present and future. Meanwhile, starting in 2025, we're going to be using the wind, the sun, and naturally hot water to run 25% of our power grid needs. I imagine soon we'll be using horses to pull our cars and lamps to light our homes. To the future!
I don't see that as clearly a mistake. There's no way wind and solar could account for 25% of our power needs today, but 15 years is an eternity in terms of technology life cycle, especially since the pace of innovation has been accelerating exponentially. In 15 years, with proper funding, solar and wind could very well be far superior technologies to the solar and wind technologies of today.
"Proper funding". Where did you plan on getting this funding? Meanwhile, rates are low now and pretty much everybody has power if they need it because of the relatively low cost.
The money would be better spent on nuclear technology. Solar is great for a grade school science project or some environmental wacko with too much money and who can afford putting a half million dollar system into their house.
Yes, it's expensive today. My point was that with technology benefiting from exponential increases in effectiveness over time, that will be less and less true in the future. Almost all commonly used technologies started as expensive ideas that only "wackos with too much money" used in the beginning. Cell phones, for example.
Tax monies. That's great. Wind and solar aren't ready for prime-time right now, so it's good to have oil. The "25%" thing is for the future.
perhaps, I'm not saying abandon it, but spending lots of money in a down economy is not the best idea...requiring it without knowning more about it is a bit scammy as well.
All of which were the products of the private sector and without federal mandates and rules setting time restrictions and excessive environmental restrictions on their completion. Who gets the federal funding for improving wind or solar efficiency? Are we even giving tax money to the right people? Do we care?
That's true in many cases. Energy is a little bit different in terms of national security, environmental issues and entrenched interests. A private enterprise attempt to develop consumer solar/wind power alternatives can be crowded out by oil companies. The government can resist such attempts. We care. I don't personally know who to give it to, but people with interest in developing such technologies who have qualifications and plans of scientific merit should get the funding.
I remeber when hybrid vehicles were used as a punchline to a joke . . . and some of the hybrid cars back then were jokes. Today's hybrid vehicles are no joke and not a step back into the stone ages.
