Is it just me or are we as a nation always talking about the problems, offering ideas, solutions, opinions, and congress moving at a snails pace never is able to come up with and approve a plan, and by the time they do, new problems have arisen, or the problem they approved, not is like applying a band aid to a limb that has been cut off.
This energy debate has me going crazy. I sometimes wonder if a dictator would have it solved....
Nuclear energy....we need it.
Solar/ wind....we need it.
We need everything, more drilling, more alternatives,
Why can't we jsut approve it all and get it going?
I think I'm going to apply for that "energy tsar" position, and get it done for us all.
You'll never see a solution. Both sides are so heavily invested in their own lobbyists they can never come
to an agreement on anything.
Consider:
a: Al Bore screams of global warming
b: others scream of global 'climate change' (yes, there is a difference)
c: we SHOULD have nuclear and wind power generators, just not in MY backyard
d: To some, common sense dictates drilling anywhere and everywhere there is oil
e: to others, we should not even CONSIDER drilling anywhere we might disturb some unknown form
of sea-snot or despoil uninhabited tho' pristine environments used by migrating animals as a 'right of
way'.
This never ends. Part of the problem is the complete fracture of American political thought where everyone is either far right or far left (or rather, the only people running for OFFICE are of these political positions) and the further apart they are, the less common ground there is for the 2 groups to work on.
We do not need an energy tsar, we need a dictator with carte blanche to MAKE or COMPEL sensible
courses of action. The Congress will never approve drilling or nuclear power because they are in the pockets of environmentalists. Likewise, while we all scream for independence from foreign oil, the dems are too heavily invested in the oil and auto industries to seriously persue these initiatives.
They're not better. We should go in one direction and that's nuclear. Those sources can't be base loaded and they can't create hydrogen via thermo-chemical iodine-sulfur process like VHTR's and GFR's can. Hydrogen could be produced well under $1 a gallon and electricity would be cheap -- virtually unlimited if we get a GFR design.
There's 6 different generation IV reactors being researched on. Four of which are suitable for hydrogen production.
· Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor
· Lead-cooled Fast Reactor
· Molten Salt Reactor
· Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor
· Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor
· Very High Temperature Reactor
I got some inside info from the Motley Fool.
Quote:
Why can't we jsut approve it all and get it going?
Can't get it going if the money is spent on useless crap.
Quote:
we need a dictator with carte blanche to MAKE or COMPEL sensible
courses of action.
They're not better. We should go in one direction and that's nuclear. Those sources can't be base loaded and they can't create hydrogen via thermo-chemical iodine-sulfur process like VHTR's and GFR's can. Hydrogen could be produced well under $1 a gallon and electricity would be cheap -- virtually unlimited if we get a GFR design.
There's 6 different generation IV reactors being researched on. Four of which are suitable for hydrogen production.
· Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor
· Lead-cooled Fast Reactor
· Molten Salt Reactor
· Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor
· Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor
· Very High Temperature Reactor
I got some inside info from the Motley Fool.
Quote:
Why can't we jsut approve it all and get it going?
Can't get it going if the money is spent on useless crap.
Quote:
we need a dictator with carte blanche to MAKE or COMPEL sensible
courses of action.
How about me?
My understanding is that of all the fuels used for electricity production, we only burn oil about 15-20%
of the time, with coal being the #1 energy source. The biggest chunk of all oil consumption is automotive and while I'd love to see a switch to hydrogen fuel cells, I don't think we're there yet. A HFC car should have most of the capabilities of current technology, performance-wise, but I think the biggest problems
currently are the fact there's no hydrogen fuel distribution....we'd need to build an entire infrastructure to accomodate the new fuels. That will take time, even if all the current gas stations begin converting or adding a hydrogen storage and pumping capability.
With Americans paying $4 a gallon for gasolene at the pumps, what makes you think we'd be charged
any less for ANY alternative fuel, regardless of how economical it may be to produce ?
This never ends. Part of the problem is the complete fracture of American political thought where everyone is either far right or far left (or rather, the only people running for OFFICE are of these political positions) and the further apart they are, the less common ground there is for the 2 groups to work on.
Bergall nailed it exactly. There are a few red herring issues that both political parties in congressfight over while they take money from lobbyists.
Most politicians are more concerned about their job security than their country.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Is it just me or are we as a nation always talking about the problems, offering ideas, solutions, opinions, and congress moving at a snails pace never is able to come up with and approve a plan, and by the time they do, new problems have arisen, or the problem they approved, not is like applying a band aid to a limb that has been cut off.
This energy debate has me going crazy. I sometimes wonder if a dictator would have it solved....
Nuclear energy....we need it.
Solar/ wind....we need it.
We need everything, more drilling, more alternatives,
Why can't we jsut approve it all and get it going?
I think I'm going to apply for that "energy tsar" position, and get it done for us all.
I don't spend much time researching the energy issues so I'm not really in a good position to debate them. But there are some things that are obvious even to someone as relatively uninformed as I am.
First of all, promoting wind/solar energy is kind ofjoke. It might be practical in some areas of the country for limited use on individual farms or similar settings, but for many, many places, Michigan for example, the concept has no value. If you live in an area with lots of cloudy days and very little wind like I do, forget it.
Nuclear energy should be given a higher priority. I understand the French get 90% of their electical power from nuclear. We do have a lot of coal, so it only makes sense if we just replace obsolete coal fired plants with nuclear instead of building new coal fired plants. But someone might have a good argument for continuing to rely on coal for all I know.
As Bergall points out, any alternative fuel will require the development of a distribution system equivalent to the one we now have for the distribution of gasoline. Even diesel fuel is not always available wherever you go, although having once driven an 18-wheeler, I can tell you that, if you pay attention to your fuel gauge, you will never run out. Alternative fuels may also require the production of redesigned engines, an expensive retooling which can't occur overnight.
We also MUST start drilling IMMEDIATELY offshore and in the ANWR. This move alone is likely to result in a drop in the price of oil since the speculators will find it less profitable to do so. It's obvious we are being gouged. It doesn't take a Ph. D. in economics to know that an increase in concumption and a decrease in supply of petroleum will cause an increase in price. But those factors can't account for the substantial and rapid increases we have seen recently.
Our culture has developed with a reliance on the ability to travel over fairly substantial distances. It is just not practical to envision riding a bicycle to work for the vast majority of us. And we can gradually switch to more fuel efficient vehicles. But a whole lot of us can't afford to go out an spend many thousands of dollars on a new car that will save us a few bucks a week on gas.
Most politicians are more concerned about their job security than their country.
You got that right. They can get a very cushy retirement after a few terms and then it is off to K St. and a lobbying job.
And griping about politicians' concern about their own self-interest doesn't help. Yes, the highest priority for just about every politician is re-election. And that very fact can be used to motivate them to take action. Letters demanding that they approve drilling offshore and in the ANWR can get them off their commitment to the environmental wackoes who DO communicate with them on an intensive basis.
Letters demanding that they approve drilling offshore and in the ANWR can get them off their commitment to the environmental wackoes who DO communicate with them on an intensive basis.
Politicians have had 35 years to get the oil situation right. The US still has no energy policy. Why does the US not have an energy policy after 35 years? If congress had passed a sound energy policy there would be no moneyto behad from environmental wackos and the oil companies.
Why can't we Americans accomplish anything?
