All I hear is talk talk and more talk-- or blocking of legislation by one political party or another. Not one politician has proposed a comprehensive energy plan and brought it to a vote. EVER!
Before you answer read my editorial on this subject-- its long -- but most Congressional Bills take up several hundred pages of text.
http://www.neighborsgo.com/index.php?page_id=1000&...
Update:Notice that I have mandated E85 vehicles by 2011. In the 1960s we had 110 octane gas available everywhere- for our hot rods!
Also notice the tax incentives proposed for renewable energy construction.
Update 3:Nickel--- a "moon shot" type program would look at EVERY possible energy solution -- cutting edge plus improvements in current extraction technology.
Update 5:Bob-- he has many of the same points as in my editorial--- so why is nothing happening? It's Congress's job to enact laws --- he is a Senator-- what's the wait?
Update 7:Keith-- you don't really believe what you just wrote? Do you?
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
We have had politicians offer comprehensive energy plans.
They've been rejected by a political machine that doesn't really want an energy policy.
Today at this time, solar and wind powered houses are not an option on a massive scale. Electric cars might be great if you only need to travel a few miles a day, but they are not economically affordable to the average Joe. Hydrogen? Its just coming about.
So what are you left with?
Nuclear power plants - we have a few hundred in this country, but the enviromental left has put as stop to building nuclear power plants and have even closed some down.
Coal - Today at this moment there is clean coal and coal to liquid technology that could be generating millions of kW or of power for the US. The US has the largest supply of coal in the world. Democrats again have shut that down as well.
Natural Gas - The US is sitting on billions of ton of natural gas. Can't get or use it because of Democrat lead policies.
Then there is Oil - The US has oil. Some of which we actually do pump out of the ground. We even pump it out of the ocean floor. Anyone remember the last huge drilling disaster in this country? However, there is so much more oil we could be getting from our own country its not even funny.
Republicans have voted for more nuclear power plants. Democrats vote against them. Remublicans have voted for more Clean Coal powered plants. Demoracts against them. Republicans have been voting for more drilling. Democrats shoot them down.
Democrats want to tax profits of the companies the provide power. In fact they offer bill that steal more taxes without generating a single kW more of power and call it an energy bill.
I believe we should explore and develop alternative power options. Wind, solar, hydrogen, electric cars, hybrids, etc...
When these option become economically viable by all means am I for them. However, I am not willing to keep shooting myself in the foot and allow my elected politicians to cost me more money on top of the money they already extort from me in taxes.
1) A dramatic increase in nuclear power generation in the US would have a strong impact on refined uranium demand (which is not unlimited).
Chosing now the nuclear option is acknowledging the wise choice of France and Japan in the 70´s without realizing that we are in 2008 and that by the time plants come in line, much more types of generation will be available.
This choice consist in a static vision not acknowledging future improvements of alternative solutions.
2) Shale oil is really the way NOT to go as its efficiency is extremely limited. In a lot of cases, 50% of the energy is used to extract the oil.
Moreover, the demand and supply for oil is set globally, not at the scale of the US. I am afraid this will not significantly change oil prices.
3) Using present technology, this is quite weak as 55MPG average econo car are available at low cost in Europe and Japan (2002-2006 models).
One of the key problem in the US is the gasoline grade which does not allow a higher compression in the motor and limits the efficiency
4) This is not a problem anymore as electro-filter can get rid of most soot on diesel exhausts.
5) The problem is the fuel quality (known as knocking resistivity... see point 3)
6) You need to differenciate according to the maturity of the technology and invest more in early R&D steps. Also technology exchange is crucial
7)...to be continued
Here's one for you to consider. I'm sure you won't agree with it all, but it's both thoughtful and comprehensive:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSh...
EDIT - Why hasn't it happened? The executive branch (ie the oil controlled Bush Administration) has a firm grip on energy policy. That will change next January.
Free-market conservatives/reactionaries want to leave the issue entirely to the free market, which just simply doesn't work. We've got oil prices pretty good here, half of what they are in Europe. But in Europe people've already started converting to alternative fuels. We haven't. Conservatives here want to leave the issue to the free markets (when there's enough incentive to come up with alternative fuels), but it takes up to decades to develop the technology. By the time such incentives arise, it will be too late.
That's why we need to vote in politicians who will offer government sponsored incentives to corporations to develop new alternative fuel technology. I don't care if it's "socialism," it's better than economic collapse.
Pure capitalism doesn't work any better than pure socialism (communism).
Simple... Corruption and Greed.
The only way to solve this is that in the next election, send our law makers a clear message that we are pissed..... Personally, I would recommend getting rid of any incumbent, no matter if they are democrat or republican. This would send a clear message..
Because Ronald Reagan dismantled Carter's energy policy, and Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II have not rebuilt it.
Obama supports radical environmentalism, even at the cost of Americas Economy