Mr Bush stated yesterday that this country needed to work on moving away from our dependency on fossil fuels. I am right on track with him on this. But he went from there to say that he was asking congress for a budget to look into the use of coal. Would anybody like to take a ride on my coal powered hover-bike?
Mr Presidunce ought to check his encyclopedia for the term "fossil fuels". Coal IS a fossil fuel, moron! And a highly polluting one at that as anyone living a soot stained European city to this day knows all too well.
So are Cheney and the rest of the cabal actually running the nation away from the cameras. All the easier to hand the dunce his "talking points" and tell him to avoid deviating from the script once the cameras are turned on.
Bush went on to say that the U.S. has not invested in a new nuclear power plant since 1979! Hummm, I wonder what happened that year to make us change our mind about nuclear power? On March 28, 1979 Reactor 2 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant suffered a partial meltdown.
Hahaha... I saw that on the daily show, too. I also read it in U.S. News. At this point, my head is going "I wonder if Dubya is having some fun fucking with us" Surely, he can't seriously think it's better.
Yea, I love John Stewart. I serious doubt W is that stoopid! Atleast I hope not. Did anyone see the footage of him holding hands with that Saudi guy, they were talkin about the flowers too! Makes you wonder!
Ahaha... I know, Dubya scored highly on his SAT, but I wonder if all his partying days and cocaine binges went to his head.
That really is just dumb, we are about equally dependent on petroleum, and coal.. Nuclear is the way to go. Technology has vastly improved since '79.. http://newamericancentury.org/global-20030923.htm
Yea lets just nuke the globe while we are at it, because lets see nucleat waste does not break down. That means that it will always be wherever we dump it.
Has any one bothered to read the proposals ?. As hilarious as all this is...i read a bit ..but you lot (americans) should know more , right ?.
Yes because I have such limited capacity as to not be able to differentiate between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. If nuclear power is so bad, how then do you propose the energy problem be solved?
The deal is they're only going to look in the direction that will continue to fill their pockets. That's my take anyway because it fits the pattern. But as far as alternate energy Future Hi has a great section on it. Amazing stuff. http://www.futurehi.net/archives/cat_energy.html
Lets see. We could look more into solar, hydroelectric, wind(cant remeber what that ones called) there are alot better options than nuclaer. And remember anytime there is a nuclaer reaction it creates nuclaer waste and that has no half-life!
Scalability... Wind and hydro lack it. Solar is innefficient. Nuclear waste does have a half life it's just quite long, but fortunately, it can be quite efficiently recycled.. Normal proccessing only uses about 5% of the potential energy, they can recycle it and continue to extract energy.
Soulless, using the PNAC as a source for legitimate energy solutions is like asking the alligator for his skin to make a new pair of boots. Don't you realise these are same cabal who orchestrated the lies behind the aministration's "war that will not end in our lifetime". You think they care one whiff for anything that isnt directly tied to their big money interests? I can assure you that these people are a significant reason why there is no serious effort to invest in alternate energy infrastructure in America.
I wasn't using that as a source for solutions, just to show what they had in mind. It really explains a lot if you bother to read what's on that site.