I think you are disregarding the power possibilities of solar and wind power. They are very reliable, reusable and a lot less pollution then coal and oil refineries. And Nuclear, although usually quite safe, raises huge security problems. We need to pay attention to these types of "mother nature" approved sources, rather than destroying limited resources.
The issue with Energy has absolutely nothing to do with "quality" -- it is strictly about "quantity." Neither solar nor wind, nor combined, are capable, under existing technologies, of replacing anywhere near 50% of the countries existing electrical demand.
If construction were to begin on January 21, even nuclear plants would take a minimum of 3 to 5 years to come on stream. Yes, we all know that it would take at least 5 years worth of Environmental Impact filings and hearings before any new power plant of any kind could possibly be constructed ... But we will assume that the new President declares and "Energy Crisis" and issues an Executive Order abolishing the need for any kind of Environmental Impact Statement or Zoning Board review or other such Regulatory hurdles. [Note that this is also necessary to permit the wind farms along the costal shelf in view of the shore or recreational boating.] And yes, we could build many "mini-nukes" or "mini-fossil fuel" plants (they are the ones that only take 3 years to build), but they suffer from the same kind of regulatory blockages as the big plants do. [Fossil fuel includes Natural Gas, Coal, and "co-generation, i.e. trash fired plants.]
But making electricity "alternately," still does nothing for the mobility portion of the hydrocarbon equation. Until you can move virtually all of industry to the "alternative" side of the equation, leaving the SUVs the remainder, petroleum (and the Saudis) is still king.
One could claim that you can treat the SUV side of the equation with rationing and mandatory higher milage CAFE rules.
However, the CAFE changes would take place in the future, and would have zero effect on everything currently in existence and still running on the road. Their impact would be 3 to 5 down the road for people who lease vehicles, and 5 to 15 years for those who buy.
So that leaves gasoline rationing. Rationing "worked" during the Second World War for one reason and one reason only -- we still had public transportation, and the majority of the population used it. Private vehicles were truly "recreational" vehicles, not commuting necessities. Today, a super majority, if not a much greater portion of the population not only does not use public transportation at all, but has no access to it even if they wanted to use it! For all its faults, we here in Philadelphia are blessed to have SEPTA. Short of New York, San Francisco and maybe Chicago, there are damm few urban areas in the country with ANY public transportation... and it doesn't exist out in the suburbs, xurbs or rural areas.
Hybrids are cute, but in real life they don't measure up. They get less than 50% of the EPA milage figures. The disparity is so bad that the EPA has been trying to get the manufacturers to use the real numbers (the ones the manufacturers generate) instead of the invalid ones which the EPA test generates, which they are required to use. This issue has existed since the beginning of the EPA milage testing, but has become more acute with the hybrids. Remember, the slogan "your milage may vary," is official EPA verbiage, not the manufacturer's or the advertising industry's.
We don't know how Kerry will act as president; this is a fact. But I can guarantee it can't be worse than what Bush has already done.
In the spirit with which you made it, I completely disagree with this statement. And, I would wager that 90% of the people supporting Kerry will disagree with you on that as well!
(However, any Bush supporter, would heartily agree with you -- Kerry doesn't even know what McAuliffe will tell him to do next.) After all, that is why they are voting for Kerry and not Bush.
Don't you think you would feel pretty betrayed if Kerry decided to continue the ban on Federal Funding for Fetal Stem Cell research; or if he nominated individuals to the Supreme Court who were known to oppose Roe V. Wade; or if he failed to repeal Bush's tax cuts and instead increased the Federal tax rate on the middle class to pay for their Federal Health Insurance; or if he suddenly discovered that Social Security really was going broke and doubled the Payroll tax rate, and raised the "retirement age"; or, infused with the spirit of Lyndon Johnson, decided he was "sending 50,000 more" troops to Iraq, and re-instituting the draft.
Just think, you would be able to say, "We got rid of Bush. Now we have to get rid of Kerry. We didn't know what he would do, but we never thought he would do the same things that Bush did."
T.T.F.N. William H. Magill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
