If we could have diverted 1% percent of the military budget for the last 20 years into strictly alternative enery/fuels research, don't you think we would be better off by now?
2006-07-08 06:25:26 · 9 answers · asked by petenpepsi 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We could be well on our way to being energy independent if we had a white house that wasn't tied to big oil. The Automobile and oil industries have fought long and hard against moving away from oil and fossil fuels. Our present government is with the oil industries in giving them huge tax breaks and their previous jobs were in the oil industries. With a government that would be open to tax breaks for research into alternative fuels and renewable fuels it shouldn't take long for America to become energy independent
2006-07-08 06:42:18 · answer #1 · answered by ironhorse65622 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why divert the money from defense when there are plenty of pork barrel spending programs that could be eliminated? Like why does the government give tax dollars to Hawaii to build and maintain an "Interstate" highway? Last time I checked you can't drive to Hawaii. So how can it be an Interstate? Intrastate yes, Interstate no. So much pork.
2006-07-08 06:36:34 · answer #2 · answered by barnrat 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The gov is the problem! I took them patented pollution free closed curcuit hydro-electric power. The gov snubbed it. The company web site will give you a laymen's overview and outline the power capability of these power plants.
This is fuel-less electric power. Fuel-less means the electric power is the cheapest way to produce electric power ever. Fueled power plants burn over $30 billion in fuel over their lifetime.
Nuclear power has 25,000 yr storage problem. When this cost is added to price of the electricity, it will cost over $50 KW. $50 is just the cost we will pay. Your children's children and everyone for the rest of the 25,000 years will continue to pay even more and get NO electricity for their payments.
Check out my company web site and call reps, tell them you want the 100% clean hydro-electric power from Permanent Energy.
2006-07-08 15:52:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Can't use nuclear to dangerous, Can't use hydroelectric hurts the fish, Wind power kills the birds and spoils Teddy's view from Hyanisport. Coal to much pollution, Solar to expensive and batteries don't last very long and expensive, Ethanol uses three gallons of water to make one gallon of fuel..
I watched the Jetsons I thought we would have fling cars by now.
2006-07-08 06:37:47 · answer #4 · answered by Luchador 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on how large of a sector of humanity your "We" is.
Some people want to be energy independent and others don't care one way or another.
Then comes the other group they sell fuels and need your dependence on them to live the successful lifestyle they enjoy.
2006-07-08 06:33:46 · answer #5 · answered by Rocketman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If left wing sissy coward, effete liberals would support our president and his proposed energy bill, we would not have the problems that we are contending with today. Thats right, take money from the military, and fight the next war with?
2006-07-08 06:32:47 · answer #6 · answered by lighthouse 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for it, escpially since most of my stocks are in renewable energy
2006-07-08 06:37:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
if Al Gore had become the rightful President in 2000, we would be 6 years and a TRILLION $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ closer,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2006-07-08 06:33:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah. I also think that people should stop complaining about windmills. We also need to develop more Nuclear plants.
2006-07-08 06:28:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋