posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 by
I have to leave for work in about 20 minutes, so I'll have to keep this short: The three of us [Amanda, Billy and I] were hanging out last night watching tv - the Daily Show had just started and John Stewart opened with a clip of Bush talking about "our energy situation", Bush stated America needed a new [non-fossil fuel] energy plan, which sounded good, yes, we do desperately need a new energy plan, this is great news, right?
Then he went on to announce his new 10 billion plan over the next ten years... still sounds pretty decent, right? So, can anyone guess what "non-fossil fuel" energy source Bush is pursuing? Maybe wind? That's a pretty untapped energy source, and sure back in the 80's it was over 80 cents a kilowatt hour, but today it's side by side with any other energy source at 2 or 3 cents a kilowatt hour. But, no, it's not wind. So... hmm... hydrogen? No. What else, oh, there is the sun? Solar power has all kinds of potential... or maybe his initiative is just zero-energy homes, homes that produce as much, most times more, energy than they use. But no, it's none of the above.
Bush wants to spent the next 10 years and whopping 10 billions dollars on 'coal'. Coal... since when is coal not a fossil fuel? Did I miss a day in science class? When I heard the words "coal" come out of that man's mouth... my head almost exploded from confusion. Seriously, coal... the same coal which already accounts for over 60% of our energy... wow. Our energy problems are as good as solved.
But that's not all, oh no, it gets better. Then Bush said something along of lines of "we haven't built a nuclear power plant since the 70's", as if he was actually reporting shocking news. Yes... nuclear power... hmm... a 'three mile island' in everyone's back yard. But aside from nuclear power being a terrible, terrible idea - I'm still stuck on the non-fossil fuel alternative being coal. And people actually clapped at this - is it just me or should everyone's jaw have just dropped wide open when he said that? Sigh. I have to go to work now, I'd like to hear what people think of this "new cutting edge" plan.
|
7 comments for coal... the way of the future
I think you're confused. Fossil fuels are burning dinosaur bones for fuel. We're conserving natural history museums.
7:27 AM, April 29, 2005Coal? So pollution isn't really a problem? Maybe this "fossil" talk confused people. OK, now we need to pursue RENEWABLE resources Bushy.
I think it must be some kind of big joke... I keep waiting for Bush to come out laughing and say, "I had ya'll going there a minute didn't I".
3:36 PM, April 29, 2005I would like to see more research on Hydrogen powered cars and homes. I think that is the wave of the future. But the coal idea is rediculous. I thought we were exploring NEW fuel sources.
3:38 AM, April 30, 2005To make you feel better, the other day or week, oil companies said they had more money than they know what to do with, and to help lower gas prices, Bush gave those oil companies 22 Billion american tax dollars. Does that make any sense? Am I the only person pissed off by this?
5:19 AM, April 30, 2005The anonymous was me (c;
5:19 AM, April 30, 2005Yeah - hydrogen makes sense... hell, almost anything besides coal makes sense. And I had not heard about the 22 billion tip to the oil companies - that's just icing on the cake... of course the "cake" represents a kick in the nuts for the general public...
12:09 PM, April 30, 2005In order to get enough hyrdrogen to produce a fair amount of power, you need nuclear power plants to make it. Estimates are you would need over 300 nuclear power plants in the United States to replace the fifteen million gas powered cars each year with hyrdogen powered cars.
12:38 PM, May 10, 2005~ Charles
Post a Comment
Take me back to the main page