That "New Deal" smell...

To touch on Jambo's comments...

Yes, the plan sounds more than do-able, and yes, it does smack of real, New Deal politics. I just want to add, though, that in my eyes, we CAN'T forgo the nuclear power plants or the "clean coal" generators to supply the wind and solar generators to the general public.

There are more than 1,200 petroleum-fueled electric plants of 100 Megawatts or greater int he US... and only 66 nuclear ones. Of the "renewable" kind (wind, geothermal, hydro and solar) we have a whopping total of 225, of which 183 are hydro plants built between 1925 and 1989 (almost all New Deal projects!).

According to the EIA website, every time we DOUBLE the number of non-petroleum plants, we cut the national cost to generate electricity by as much as 20%!!! This seems too good to be true, but the cost of cleaning, maintaining and upgrading old plants has to be figured in, as well. So, if, in the next 20 years, this nation could put 180 new nuclear or alternative-fuel plants online, we will have reduced the national cost of electrical production by a factor of nearly 50% from the cost today. (NOTE: I can't say for sure that this accounts for ADJUSTED dollar value... only that if it costs $100 billion today, it will cost $52 billion after the 114 new plants are online)

This doesn't detract from Jambo's plan at all. His plan reduces national dependence on centralized power sources (at least for the private individuals needs), which would then free up power and reduce cost for commercial and industrial use, further lowering costs on a national scale. Furthermore, it makes what happened after Katrina nearly impossible to repeat. How many homes in LA and MS went weeks without power, but still had functional roofs and 3 months of blue skies and high temps?

Perhaps Jambo wasn't calling for the money to be spent on power plants to be "redirected"... but if he was, then this is my rebuttal.