Quote:
Dear Shelly Moore Capito,
Being a mildly paranoid individual, I would put some thought into the first question of this letter: how did you know of my 'cocern for energy issues'? While I am not necessarily apathetic about the whole thing, it is not as if I take to the streets shouting, "Oil is going to run out! Drilling oil in Alaska is stupid! Its just avoiding the inevitable and appeasing the tools!" There might have been a point in my not very long life when I signed onto something that would let you guys know something like this, but I'm still curious and, if you were to read this, I would want to know how you know something of this nature about me.
Anyway, your bill is great and all and I don't really see any problems with it. Well, that was a white lie: I have one. I just have one problem with it so far (and a suggestion, but that's later): what alternative energies are you going to invest that $2.6 trillion dollars into other than coal? I'm sure you're personally aware of every single drawback to the various alternative energies, but I like to make you feel like there is no possible way you could miss my point in this so I'm going to reiterate them in this letter as a list. That list will start with coal, which is EXACTLY what you want to invest in and what EXACTLY you should NOT invest in.
Coal: This is what you want to invest in. This is what you shouldn't invest in. Coal is even dirtier than oil. Not only that, but we would have to adapt all of our production and power infrastructure in the United States to run in coal, which probably takes more than $2.6 trillion dollars (that is made over a period of time that will span probably more than a decade after the bill is passed). There is also the fact that coal will also run out. With China and its one billion plus population starting to finally emerge as an economic force and more, cars are starting to become a lot popular in more than just Europe and America. I've read estimates that mostly say coal will last around 18 years. I think you and your children will live more than 18 years, so I want to emphasize that resorting to coal is like having another glass of water instead of a full meal when you're hungry.
Nuclear Energy: If I remember right, this is what John McCain is calling for... and it is quite possibly the most downright retarded alternative energy to put money into. It will give us an incredible amount of energy, but you guys would have to start hiding some things from the public. Mostly, these things would revolve around the fact that nuclear plants are highly dangerous (see: Chernobyl and for the effects of nuclear radiation on a population in the long run, see documentaries about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they produce a radioactive sludge that cannot be disposed of cleanly for several hundred years. Nuclear plants also use an extremely rare isotope of Uranium itself or an even rarer isotope of Plutonium. By extremely rare, I mean less than 1% of all Uranium and Plutonium is U-235 or P-239.
Wind Mills: These produce a ridiculously small amount of energy in a cost to energy ratio. It would take several kilometers of fields of windmills before they start to become useful at all.
Hydrogen: You may or may not have heard of the people that think hydrogen is a good idea, but you can't find hydrogen alone naturally on Earth. It ends up costing energy instead of generating it.
Orimulsion: It contains 2.9% sulfur. No.
Tar Sands: It'll take a truckload of it to get half a barrel. Trucks require oil to run, too.
I hope you take the time to read this letter, maybe consider its contents, and possibly even reply personally.
Sincerely,
Louis Falbo
Being a mildly paranoid individual, I would put some thought into the first question of this letter: how did you know of my 'cocern for energy issues'? While I am not necessarily apathetic about the whole thing, it is not as if I take to the streets shouting, "Oil is going to run out! Drilling oil in Alaska is stupid! Its just avoiding the inevitable and appeasing the tools!" There might have been a point in my not very long life when I signed onto something that would let you guys know something like this, but I'm still curious and, if you were to read this, I would want to know how you know something of this nature about me.
Anyway, your bill is great and all and I don't really see any problems with it. Well, that was a white lie: I have one. I just have one problem with it so far (and a suggestion, but that's later): what alternative energies are you going to invest that $2.6 trillion dollars into other than coal? I'm sure you're personally aware of every single drawback to the various alternative energies, but I like to make you feel like there is no possible way you could miss my point in this so I'm going to reiterate them in this letter as a list. That list will start with coal, which is EXACTLY what you want to invest in and what EXACTLY you should NOT invest in.
Coal: This is what you want to invest in. This is what you shouldn't invest in. Coal is even dirtier than oil. Not only that, but we would have to adapt all of our production and power infrastructure in the United States to run in coal, which probably takes more than $2.6 trillion dollars (that is made over a period of time that will span probably more than a decade after the bill is passed). There is also the fact that coal will also run out. With China and its one billion plus population starting to finally emerge as an economic force and more, cars are starting to become a lot popular in more than just Europe and America. I've read estimates that mostly say coal will last around 18 years. I think you and your children will live more than 18 years, so I want to emphasize that resorting to coal is like having another glass of water instead of a full meal when you're hungry.
Nuclear Energy: If I remember right, this is what John McCain is calling for... and it is quite possibly the most downright retarded alternative energy to put money into. It will give us an incredible amount of energy, but you guys would have to start hiding some things from the public. Mostly, these things would revolve around the fact that nuclear plants are highly dangerous (see: Chernobyl and for the effects of nuclear radiation on a population in the long run, see documentaries about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they produce a radioactive sludge that cannot be disposed of cleanly for several hundred years. Nuclear plants also use an extremely rare isotope of Uranium itself or an even rarer isotope of Plutonium. By extremely rare, I mean less than 1% of all Uranium and Plutonium is U-235 or P-239.
Wind Mills: These produce a ridiculously small amount of energy in a cost to energy ratio. It would take several kilometers of fields of windmills before they start to become useful at all.
Hydrogen: You may or may not have heard of the people that think hydrogen is a good idea, but you can't find hydrogen alone naturally on Earth. It ends up costing energy instead of generating it.
Orimulsion: It contains 2.9% sulfur. No.
Tar Sands: It'll take a truckload of it to get half a barrel. Trucks require oil to run, too.
I hope you take the time to read this letter, maybe consider its contents, and possibly even reply personally.
Sincerely,
Louis Falbo
Yes, I know there are grammar and spelling errors in it, but the only parts I edited out were where I was overly condescending or smartass, even going as far to accuse her of taking money from the coal companies for this bill. Then I realized that I was more concerned with knowing if she had any idea what she was causing and edited those parts out.
Thoughts, anyone?
