TheRealMafoo said:
Most environmentalist will not accept nuclear power as a clean alternative. Hydro power yes, but it can't power all of the US. Stop sidestepping the option of nuclear power. As a long term alternative its really quite viable, 'environmentalists won't like it' isn't an argument against that - it can be used against literally every source of power that we have. As for statistics. I have no clue. I would guess however, it's virtually imposable to be less then 12 in a country of 300,000,000. So, I am safe saying dozens (even if in the end, it's 1 dozen). So you made that one up basically. And if today we stopped using fossil fuels, and started using wind and solar, our bill would go op closer to 50 times, not 3, so I just picked a low number, because in reality, if we ever did this, it would be slow. Of course it would be ridiculous if you changed it all in one day - actually it would be impossible. Its a process that will take years. However you overstate the cost of wind hugely as well; http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo06/pdf/elec_boxtbl.pdf It's actually (in the right locations) comparable with fossil fuels and getting cheaper while they get more expensive. While I can't come up with statistics for the above, you do have to agree, that if we just removed on average $200 a month from every household, the effects it would have on a large part of the population could be severe (The average electric bill in the US, is $99.70). I don't see where you're getting the three times the cost from either, so no you won't be removing $200 a month unless you can back that up with a source. Why do it, if the problem solved is minor? Wouldn't you want to know why your doing something, if the negative impacts of doing it is major? What is this minor problem? We're dealing with some fairly major problems here... |
