More like 40 years when you consider the subsidized solar and geothermal
I believe this was a very worthwhile cause, though you must be mistaken in saying geothermal has been subsidized... it is a *much* cheaper alternative to traditional coal and natural gas power plants. If it *has* been subsidized back then, well, it only proves that this was an excellent idea, because if it weren't for geothermal, then our energy would be even more expensive than it already is. It's certainly better than the nuclear subsidies Bush is now planning. Also, where I always tend to disagree w/ most Republicans, our short term economic outlook should not be the only part of the equation... to ignore the environment is a very, very big mistake. Not only would it ruin our economy longer term, but it will indeed kill our planet, whether the right wants to believe it or not. It's so interesting that Bush now wants to abandon NASA's research into global warming... this while pretending to be somewhat open minded about it all. But regardless of the environment, how can Bush possibly cut the Dept of Energy's alternative energy program in half and still hope to get away from an OPEC reliance?? Even if we did find oil in Alaska after cutting down trees, building miles of pipes, and risking oil leakages, etc... we will still need a longer term solution to energy independence... and we will slow down the obvious long term economic benefits of an abundent, naturally supplied energy source such wind, geothermal, ocean waves, and solar. Solar technology is expected to be some 10x more efficient than it is today... much more efficient than natural gas and coal. Why has Bush slashed the budget for this??? Complete foolishness... just a little power hungry brat in office looking to appease his big oil backers. Drives me nuts...
- Zen |
