An interesting pre-State of the Union take on energy, including biofuel and ethanol production. Bush mentioned cellulosic ethanol technology prominently.
1 posted on
02/01/2006 9:31:47 AM PST by
cogitator
To: cogitator
2 posted on
02/01/2006 9:32:52 AM PST by
cogitator
To: cogitator
A generation is a long time. Depending on madmen in the interim is absurd.
One word: ANWR
To: cogitator
Not to sound negative or anything.... but I wouldn't hold my breath.....
6 posted on
02/01/2006 9:43:14 AM PST by
SouthernBoyupNorth
("For my wings are made of Tungsten, my flesh of glass and steel..........")
To: cogitator
We have a model of success: Brazil. ... Starting in the 1970s, vast sugar plantations were devoted to producing ethanol, a homegrown liquid fuel. The Brazil stuck with the program through several setbacks and today is essentially independent of foreign oil. ... Much easier to do with an economic engine that is 1/8th the size of that of the United States.
By all means, let's realign our agricultural output and plant 8 times as much sugar as they do in Brazil so we can convert it to ethanol ... that'll solve all our problems.
9 posted on
02/01/2006 9:54:46 AM PST by
tx_eggman
(Unforgiveness is like eating rat poison and expecting the other person to get sick.)
To: cogitator; Publius6961
"In a generation..." A generation is minimum 20 years. Is there anything we can do in the short term?
Conservation has been beat to death, since the 70s and we lowered our thermostats and re-insulated our homes. I think we could do more. I could ride my bike instead of driving my car. I could cut off my computer when it is not in use. I could plan my driving to do more things when I do go out with the car. There is more I could do, but it would not likely cut consumption more than 10-15%. I doubt if everyone will try as hard as I would.
I say increase the tax on gas by $1.00 per gallon and use all funds to decrease income taxes (unless the fair-tax is passed). Conservation is best driven by economics.
To: cogitator
The problem I have with Bush and his energy policy is that he won't push any of his initiatives. He just raises the issue, then lets the enviro-wackos shoot'em down. Kinda like what he did with SS.
If he isn't going to fight for an issue, I'd just as soon he not bring it up. The end result makes him look extremely weak.
16 posted on
02/01/2006 10:16:28 AM PST by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: cogitator
A novel idea: let's let the market decide. If we are really running out of oil (as has been incorrectly predicted since we first started pumping it), then prices will rise until alternatives become economic without government fiat or subsidies.
18 posted on
02/01/2006 10:21:01 AM PST by
Doodle
To: cogitator
By the way, from the end of the article: "Michael O'Hanlon and David Sandalow are senior scholars at the Brookings Institution."
Surprise, surprise.
24 posted on
02/01/2006 10:30:16 AM PST by
Doodle
To: cogitator
The dithering just continues ...
During the Bi-Centennial former President Gerald Ford, in a speech delivered at the Old North Bridge in Concord, MA, committed the United States to be energy independent by the year 2000.
Still waiting ...
31 posted on
02/01/2006 11:05:20 AM PST by
jamaksin
To: cogitator
I'm waiting for the enviro lobby to praise Bush for his leadership in coming out on this issue. Waiting, Waiting...
Certainly, his determination and follow through will make a massive difference, if the Dems don't get obstructionist, yet again, just to trip him up.
37 posted on
02/01/2006 11:12:36 AM PST by
Wiseghy
("You want to break this army? Then break your word to it.")
To: cogitator
I don't mean to be rude, but this idea that we shouldn't drill ANWR is totally ridiculous. Alternative energy sources aren't going to come tomorrow morning, but a war with Iran d@mned well might. When the democraps nixed ANWR drilling they handed the Iranians, gift wrapped, a bigger club to hit is in the head with. When things go south with Iran, and the probably will, if we had drilled ANWR we'd likely see $4/gallon gas. Since we haven't drilled it, expect more on the lines of $7.50/gallon.
It's simple: in the long-term, produce ethanol and biodiesel for cars, nuclear for electricity (forget solar, wind, hydroelectric. They're nice to have, but not workable as a replacement for nuclear or coal. Get used to this). In the short-term, drill ANWR, blow up terrorists, get rid of the iranian president and his psychotic pals.
41 posted on
02/01/2006 11:28:47 AM PST by
JamesP81
To: cogitator
Yeah. It was very dissapointing, but throws a bone to the farm lobby, I suppose.
Domestic drilling is the answer. In my utopian vision, we'd all be using RTGs running off Plutonium 238 (can't make a bomb out of it, less toxic than caffeine, electrical power for 40 years) in our automobiles, but that ain't gonna happen. The next best bet is using hydrogren or some other chemical storage system driven by nuclear power.
55 posted on
02/01/2006 12:29:02 PM PST by
frgoff
To: cogitator
Biodiesel - it gets much better milage than ethanol.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson