and I'm sorry but did you just say that nuclear power is an "unreliable energy source" and that nuclear is one of a group of power sources that "aren't going to remain stable for long and will eventually lead the country's economy into a much deeper depression than we have ever heard" excuse me, but do you know ANYTHING about nuclear power?!?   See 5 other replies

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient known power source on the planet, don't bash it on some panicky knee jerk reaction to an OLD reactor that was only damaged and not destroyed after it was hit by an earthquake 16 times as powerful as what it was rated to withstand.interesting statistic
Avg. deaths per terrawatt hourcoal 161
natural gas 36
peat 12
hydroelectric 1.4
nuclear 0.4http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e   See 5 other replies

You have to think about the future population expansion in the U.S. and the amount of fossil fuels that won't be available in years to come. Also, unreliable energy sources (i.e. the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan... any nuclear power for that matter...) aren't going to remain stable for long and will eventually lead the country's economy into a much deeper depression than we have ever heard of. In short, cleaner, more expensive energy now will be terrific for the economy down the road but I understand how difficult it will be to find money to build, supply, and execute these plans. The education system has to improve before any of this can work. I'm in my sophomore year of high school and I strongly believe we need a better direction for our schools. We can't get all of our high- tech industry from China and Japan... Just look at how that ended up -___- and we have to finally forget about stupid stuff like the PRESIDENT'S citizenship and work on America as a whole. Yay for Obama!   See 5 other replies

Can't research viable options when the country has a poor education system.   See 5 other replies

I am with you on this one. I am all for living "greener" and all that, but it has to be cost effective. Personally I think it is a self solving problem. As oil becomes scarcer, the price increases, as the price increases other options become more cost effective. Right now we can see it is coming, but rather then immediately "go green", we should be putting money into researching viable options.   See 5 other replies

The $20 billion that the Obama Administration forced BP to set aside is very much a slush fund.Rather than taking BP to court to determine where exactly faults lay, and to whom, exactly, monies should be paid, they were forced to set aside a big chunk of money to be distributed to people making claims against which BP will not be permitted an opportunity to defend themselves.It's a slush fund to score political points with folks in the region. It *is* a shake-down.   See 2 other replies

In regard to drilling methods, Capitol Hill argued that other oil companies wouldn't have drilled in the way BP did, and that there were safety concerns. They then asked Hayward if he thought that BP's drilling methods lacked the safety precautions of the other companies.But since Hayward is not a drilling Engineer, he is not able, until the investigations are complete, to be in a position to say whether BP's drilling methods constituted a lack of safety precautions.   See 2 other replies