Is the Pickens plan to significantly increase wind energy production in the United States to decrease dependence on foreign oil a good idea?

  • The government deals with a lot of corrupt parties when trading foreign oil and, by reducing dependence on them, it helps the whole world.

    While there is a lot of cost going into improving the country's infrastructure to support wind energy, in the long run, it is a good idea to reduce the amount of oil needed for energy. If the U.S. doesn't have as much demand for oil from corrupt foreign leaders, then they don't get as much money from the U.S., and it reduces their world power status, as a whole.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • The Pickens plan is a good idea, as the U.S. should not be dependent on foreign, often hostile, regimes for its energy supply.

    The United States' dependence on foreign energy is dangerous. Many of the countries the U.S. must rely upon are not the most friendly to U.S. interests, such as Venezuela. Currently, these countries could hold the American economy hostage by refusing to supply oil. Furthermore, these countries can use the money made by selling oil to the U.S. to build up their military capabilities. It is, therefore, certainly a good idea to adopt the Pickens plan.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • I support the increase in wind energy production in order to decrease the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

    Not only are the emissions from oil-based fuel bad for our environment and the ozone, but the United States' reliance on oil is often the root of many wars. Often politicians claim those wars are based on other issues, but in reality, this oil dependence often leads to an increase in defense spending and too many American lives lost.

    Posted by: ClammyErwin38
  • I agree, because increasing wind energy in this country will benefit this country and make us more independent from countries that we do not agree with.

    United States paired with Venezuela or Sudan are not the best of allies. But we need oil from these countries, so we sit back when the regime suppresses its citizens. If the U.S. was independent from these countries and their oil, we could be more firm in denouncing what we see as an attack on humanity and do something about it. But we don't. We don't do anything about it, because if we do provoke these backward states, they will cut off the oil supply to us and our allies, thus interrupting the world market.

    Posted by: JaggedGiuseppe
  • I would support the Pickens plan, because wind energy is clean and sustainable, while foreign oil shackles the American economy.

    Every year, Americans spend billions in tax dollars to support the economy of another country. If instead that money were spent to create sustainable energy throughout the United States, it would free up tax payers to a large extent. Not only because they would be free from having to pay the extra amount spent on foreign oil, but also because they wouldn't need to pay extra costs on their electric bills. This would stimulate the economy quickly and at the same time reduce the carbon footprint of the United States. In Summary, A small initial investment will pay for itself in the long run, and revitalize the American economy.

    Posted by: CaIdBorn2
  • The Pickens Plan is both forward thinking and reflects current realities in energy consumption.

    Our dependency on foreign oil is excessive and dangerous to our political and economic stability. Natural gas is plentiful and can be further developed and harnessed to buy much needed time to develop other energy strategies, such as increasing our use of green technologies, e.g. wind energy. The idea is to use every resource at our fingertips to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and eventually, fossil fuels in entirety.

    Posted by: RegFIea
  • Yes, because not only is wind energy better for the environment, but it is cheaper to use and produce.

    Wind energy is a successfully used source of energy in many areas. It allows us to be self-sufficient as a country, and it is cleaner and cheaper to produce than oil.

    Posted by: R3thHoPe
  • The Pickens plan is a great idea, in that is uses wind, solar, natural gas and oil from our own land to reduce our foreign dependency on oil.

    Right now, the U.S. imports approximately 70% of our oil from external sources. Some of this money goes to countries who are suspected to have ties to terrorism sources. Therefore, reducing our dependency on these countries not only gives more jobs and income to American workers, but also reduces the flow of money to terrorism groups. In every case, for the United States, reducing our dependence on outside sources makes self-reliant and solves many problems, not just one. The Pickens plan is brilliant in that it raises the issue and addresses it in a single swoop.

    Posted by: Asher Cummings
  • The Pickens plans is a good idea to significantly increase wind energy production in the United States to decrease dependence on foreign oil.

    The installation of thousand of wind turbines will allow the country to generate cheaper and efficient wind energy. This technology will decrease the need to use oil and consequently the dependence on oil producing countries will lower in a great way. Wind energy will be used to produce electricity, natural gas that today is used to produce electricity will go to the vehicle market and then the need for oil will be smaller.

    Posted by: l0olllooi
  • Absolutely a good idea, anything we can do to reduce dependence on foreign or domestic oil will be a step in the right direction.

    As is being made abundantly clear by the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, we need to move quickly to stop our dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic. All the wars in the Persian Gulf region are based on the need for oil, only thinly veiled as being fought for some other reason. We can reduce the expense of continuing war, destruction of the environment and start moving in the right direction by relying more on wind and solar technologies.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • Wind farms are unsightly and inefficient, and there are better ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

    Wind energy is highly inefficient, and a poor substitute for the massive amounts of energy America needs to decrease its dependence on foreign oil. Wind farms not only pose a danger to the environment by flinging sheets of frozen ice that kills birds that blunder into their spinning blades, they do not produce energy at a high enough rate. What's more, they are unsightly, take up space for useful real estate, and produce an annoying, high-pitched whine. These nuisances should be scrapped, not encouraged.

    Posted by: SadLamar85
  • The Pickens plan is not a good idea, because of the intermittent nature of the wind and weather conditions.

    Due to the intermittent nature of the wind, power plants would have to store electricity for periods when the wind is not blowing. Storing electricity is more costly. Also, other forms of electric generation would need to be in place for times when wind production is not enough and stored energy is not available.

    Posted by: CrowdedJesus80
  • While wind energy may sound like a good idea, it's down right unreliable.

    Wind energy is not efficient for many areas in the United States, most of these being highly urbanized areas that require a mass amount of power, which nuclear energy usually ends up being the solution of. Wind energy is unreliable in the respect that wind is not a guaranteed resource and the amount of area needed for an adequate wind farm can become a problem.

    Posted by: RayEar

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.