The free market for electricity has FAILED US. Here is the solution.

[iconoclastNYC]

The free market for electricty has failed humanity. We are destroying our planet and the entire free market is spending hundreds of millions to brainwash us so we will ignore the problem.

Energy is the USA's number one national security problem. Our military is structured around keeping the oil flowing. We spend well over 100 billion a year to do this.

WHAT I PROPOSE:

We take 60 billion dollars from the Pentagon. This is less than 20% of one years budget.

We recruit three top executives from energy companies to form three independant energy companies and pay them 30 million each a year to start three independant state-owned (but not state RUN) power companies.

We only allow these new companies to build-out new plants that use solar (panels or solar chimneys), wind farms, or next-gen "walk-away safe pebble bed" nuclear reactors.

The first five years of the project 2 billion from the fund is divided equally between the three state-owned power companies.

Every year after that the new capital funding is divided according to the performance of the three companies. It is competitive.

The company that is the most effective at installing new facilities (has the lowest price per megawatt) and/or brings the most new capacity online is rewarded with a larger proportion of the years disbursement.

Optional: Once we have eliminated the need for imported energy supplies (10-20 years) and all power is clean (including moving us to hydrogen made from clean energy, we auction off the state-run power companies back into the private sector.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Let's stop at the first part.

You're never going to get Pentagon money today. As if we wouldn't be absolutely destroyed as a party for even suggesting that.

[BeFree]

4. Don't stop

You say: "...be absolutely destroyed as a party..."

Well.... rather that we were destrotyed as a party than be a party to the destruction.

I know, I know, America, the Lynch-mob, desires to spend more and more on the tools of destruction. But that doesn't mean we have to help them toward that end.

Hell, the most the pentagon needs is about 100B in order to protect us. The rest of the money now being spent is just furthering government waste.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. You're not understanding at all.

Our plan would not only NEVER get put through in the first place, we'd never have the chance to put ANY plan through EVER again. Is pragmatism completely and totally lost on you?

[BeFree]

7. History

Clinton, a democrat, just a few years ago, whittled away at the defense budget, or have you forgotten?

Don't tell me you subscribe to the Lynch-mob?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Yeah, and did you not pay attention in 2002 and 2004?

We got absolutely hammered because of that, even though Clinton was right to do in since we no longer had a Cold War to fight. Have you not paid ANY attention for the last 5 years??

[BeFree]

11. Rewriting history, now, are we?

Blame it all on Clinton? Where have I heard that before?

Sport, the elections were stolen, 9/11 was the defining moment for the Lynch-mob, followed by anthrax mailed to dems in congress, followed up by the release of anger upon the Afghans, and then the Shock and Awe from two years ago. Yeah, I've paid attention, where have you been?

In short, had we a military of just 100B we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. You heard it before because THAT'S WHAT THEY DID!

Wow, I can't believe you really don't see the point in this. Clinton cuts the Defense budget, all Democrats get labelled "weak on national security", we lose elections. You can cry about stolen elections all you want, but it doesn't change the problem that in the real world, people STILL buy that bullshit!

If YOU can get 60 million Americans to believe that a lower Pentagon budget is just what we need right now, by all means, I think YOU should be running for President. Since that's literally going to be impossible right now, I'll just keep living here in the real world and not go anywhere near your ridiculous plan.

[BeFree]

14. So, you are pro Lynch-mob?

Because following your, uh, logic, we should just give the pentagon a blank check? And what about gay rights? Forget that too, so we can be selected?

Idio-isms like your's are why dems are so looked down on; we must have backbone, we must stand for what is correct, not whore ourselves for votes. We just are not attractive when we are on our knees servicing the clients.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

16. Why you're no fun

Ignore is for losers. So is pandering for the vote by selling out to the Lynch-mob. No, if we are to be successful it will be because we defeat the Lynch-mob and return our world to a peaceful, economically and environmentally sound process of enjoying the few short years we have to experience the wonderful things the little blue ball spinning in space has to offer, or, as you seem to desire, we should be afraid? I prefer to be free, myself.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. The three-pronged solution...

has worth if you use the nuclear generation to generate hydrogen. Just saying.

Also, there is hydroelectric that could be in that mix.

[iconoclastNYC]

3. Hydro creates carbon

In some cases Hydro is worse than coal generation.
-----
From New Scientist magazine..i lost the link:
-----
Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. PLease, I would like more information.

Such as how that stuff is created. Something in that sounds very fishy. In extremis.

[GuardianAngel]

10. read the article

that would mean that every river, lake and stream is produceing huge ammounts of methane, and carbon dioxide, since the CO2 in question is from the resivoir bed and not the turbine.

so what do we do drain all of the lakes? which would produce far more methane than the resivoir bed of a Hydro turbine generator, or switch to a source of power that is non-renewable ( like oil YIKES or coal ? )

or how about we g back to 1500 BC and let millions starve to death and die of disease without modern hygine or food production.

oh by the way here is the link you lost

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

[iconoclastNYC]

17. Step off

All i was doing was correcting the false notion that Hydro is eco friendly and something we should do to eleveate global warming.

Quit fucking attacking me for pointing out a fact.

[BeFree]

6. Not a bad idea

Lord knows we had better do something to protect our lifestyle. The congress has been negligent, and the administration has been flat out criminal....

Too bad Gore and Kerry both had the elections stolen out from underneath them, either one of them would have put us on a proper course by now, possibly even incorporating your ideas.

Oh, for what could have been.....

[MadHound]

13. Well, first off, you're not going to get anything that is state sponsored

Through our legislature anytime soon. People see those two words, and start seeing communist red. However I do like the idea of whacking off twenty percent of the Pentagon's budget. Better yet, let's whack off half, and make it a permament cut. Despite all of the rhetoric spewed from both sides of the aisle, Clinton's vaunted defense cuts amounted to only one percent of the defense budget. It is time that we started getting the benefits of the peace dividend that we were promised so long ago.

I also disagree with building new reactors, I don't care how safe they supposedly are. There is still the problem of nuclear waste that has to be dealt with, and until we find a one hundred percent safe way to dispose of this waste it is a foolish notion to create even more of it.

However I like the idea of using wind and solar. In fact according to a DOE report on our energy resources, there is enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to meet our energy needs through the year 2030.

But to implement this, you should do it on a local level. Our city here in Mid Mo passed an ordinance that forces our local utilities to start using an ever increasing percentage of renewables to provide power. This should be applied across the country. This would go down much smoother with the American public that making something "state sponsored". We have too many Cold Warriors who are just itching to go crusading again.