Do we need an energy Marshall Plan, 4 US? ( It supplied US industry with impetus, while ameliorating Europe.)?

Do we need a plan which spends in the US to develop energy independence?

Where's f'ing congress?

Instead we have oil interests in the White House, and a potential candidate with middle eastern connections.

Update:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080528/ap_on_bi_ge/do...

Dow = 20% price increase cause of energy policy, or lack of thereof.

6 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Yes.

    During The administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt we had the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Rural Electrification Agency.

    We originally had a plan in the Carter administration to become energy independent by the year 2000.

    This plan came about as a result of the first oil crisis.

    At the core of that plan was the construction of 2000 nuclear power plants. The design would have been "breeder" reactors that produce more nuclear fuel than they consume, so the nuclear fuel supply would be inexhaustible.

    Unfortunately that program was cancelled.

    We definitely need to bring that program back.

    Energy independence needs to be considered a national security issue.

    The so called Environmentalists cannot be permitted to block a project this important.

    The environmentalists raise the so called nuclear waste disposal issue. However this is a politically created issue to block nuclear power plants, not a real issue.

    If spent fuel rods are recycled, over 95% of the so called waste becomes more fuel that can be used in a nuclear power plant.

    Other opponents say that we should rely on new technology to solve our energy problems.

    This is really nothing more than a tactic to take the political pressure of by pointing to some non existent promise of some new fuel source.

    We have been hearing this now for over 40 years and we still have no results.

    It is not likely that we willl have results in the next 40 years.

    We are in the middle of a crisis now. We need to use the technology that we have available now. We cannot wait for years for some new hoped for technology that may or may not solve the problem.

    We need to get the nuclear power plants built now.

    If at some time in the future some new technology (such as a controlled fusion reaction) becomes ready for market, that is wonderful. That technology can gradually replace the nuclear power plants as they reach the end of their useful lives.

    We have people who cannot afford to buy the gasoline that they need to go to work, and feed and clothe their families and pay their mortgages.

    We need to solve this problem now not 30 or 40 years from now.

    The only way that we can solve this problem now is with about 2000 nuclear power plants.

    The cost of production of electricity by a nuclear power plant is approximately 3 cents per kilowatt hour. That includes the decommissiong costs of the nuclear reactor at the end of its useful life.

    To put that cost in perspective, a gallon of gasoline has an energy content equal to 35 kilowatt hours of electricity.

    At a cost of production of 3 cents per kilowatt hour, that is like having gasoline at a cost of $1.05 per gallon.

    Only nuclear power plants can produce electricity that cheaply without producing greenhouse gases.

    The cost of electricity produced by solar photovoltaic cells is approximately 10 times the cost of producing electricity in a nuclear power plant. That is like paying $10.00 per gallon of gasoline, instead of $1.00 per gallon of gasoline.

    Most of us can handle $1.00 per gallon of gasoline. Very few of us can handle $10.00 per gallon of gasoline.

    The same is true with the cost of electricity.

    Source(s): 1.My experience. Over 40 years of Democratic Politics, and my experience in the Carter administration. 2.The Electric Power Research Institute.
  • 4 years ago

    I think it depends on the situation... For starters, however, there are no constitutional amendments protecting men from anything or giving men the right to anything specifically. Now this might mean that men are the dominant factor and have to be kept "in check" or it might mean that there is a psychological factor at play in society that says women are "weaker" and need protection. I'm willing to bet, you'd hear both sides of the argument with various caveats to accompany those arguments. We have a local newspaper (The Westword) that recently published an article about a guy suing nightclubs over the Famous Ladies' Night that usually occurs on Wednesdays. His claim was that women get free drinks from men as it is, so why is there discrimination against men on Wednesday nights allwoing women to drink free and not pay a cover charge. (The bonehead is yet to win a case...) There is certainly other areas to examine: payscales, gender-specific careers, maternity vs paternity leave, etc. I think we live in a more equivalent society than people are willing to admit, but on a case by case analysis, I think you'll see both genders treated unfairly.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Which candidate has Middle East connection???

    I know of a candidate that will end the war in Iraq, and wants to discourage a "gas tax holiday."

    It is important to note that an increase in the price of gasoline will limit our dependence upon it.

    The demand for alternatives will increase, and that makes it possible for companies to invest in new technology. That my friend, is progressive.

    High gas prices = energy independence

    The only energy plan we need is one where we make gas as expensive as we can, but gradually.

  • 1 decade ago

    NO! We don't need the government Telling anyone what to do!!

    What we need is more drilling , more refineries and bullets in the head of all enviromental groups that are against Nuke Power Plants!

    "During The administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt "

    Internment camps, spying , Socialism , socialism and more socialism

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    YES. We need to be completely independent of foreign oil, in fact we need to make oil obsolete with new technology. Then OPEC can drink their oil.

  • 1 decade ago

    If your willing to pay three times what you pay for fuel now, in the future.

    Then we can have energy independence.

    But right now, there are no affordable, viable alternatives.

    And while we can invest heavily into research for new sources of energy.

    That does not mean any new sources of energy, will be cheaper than what we are already using.

    ......................................................................................................

    So you can decide,

    Do you want cheap energy ?

    Or energy independence, no matter what the cost ?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.