I am an all of the above person, but gambling on better technology to get and refine shale oil is going to be just as costly and risky as moving towards alternative energy. The only problem is that if we only concentrated on local oil to ween off of foreign influence, we would be in the same problem in 15 years when the most readily available resources are out of our technologies reach. There will always be lots of oil in the ground, the problem is that the easiest oil to get to and refine is running low.
Yes, we have 2 trillion barrels of shale oil, but ask any geologist why we shouldn’t be too excited about that number. Most of this isn’t even as close to be as accessible and as good of quality as in the Middle East. All of this while our demand for oil grows exponentially.
We need to have an all of the above approach, but oil at home isn’t the solution and if government grants and resources are going to contribute to the future of energy that needs to be realized.
I think as far as alternative energy goes, the country can take the same incentive based approach as Texas in order to have a relatively Free Market approach to growing the tech sector.
Texas hasn’t become the Wind King by subsidizing wind farms, the government gives entrepreneurs incentives and tax breaks to do business in Texas.
“Texas hasn’t become the Wind King by subsidizing wind farms, the government gives entrepreneurs incentives and tax breaks to do business in Texas.”
That’s subsidy by another name... Check this out.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
It is true, we have a lot of oil, but a lot is hard to reach, low quality high sulfur, or in small pockets. A few years ago I was in southern Illinois, and saw many working “grasshopper” rigs. I made inquiries and found that a lot of farmers were running one or two rigs, and getting from 1 to 12 barrels a day at 4 to 5,000 feet. Hardly a huge production.
As far as promoting wind and solar I will direct you to the article below.
Clean and green, the energy system we aspire to, is subsidized like no other energy source in history. By whom? Us, and our progeny. All energy has historically received some type of public support to even out the volatility of high and low price cycles. The Energy Information Agency of the U.S. government's Department of Energy reports that, for 2008, natural gas was subsidized 25 cents per megawatt hour of electricity produced, coal received 44 cents per megawatt hour, nuclear $1.59. Oil was not reported in these numbers since oil is hardly a factor in electricity production. However, oil benefits from a variety of tax subsidies for dry well expenses and royalty holidays dating from the $10-a-barrel oil days of the late 1990s, which the administration promises to rescind. At the same time in the same year, wind energy received public subsidy of $23.37 per megawatt hour; solar energy received $24.34. These numbers do not include the additional subsidies we taxpayers have been compelled to pay for wind, solar and biofuels through the stimulus plan, the 2010 budget and the 2011 framework budget. These subsidies help support 2 percent of today's energy system. Their proponents promise to double and double again the amounts of subsidized supply from clean and green with no commitment to ending subsidies. That's not a new energy system.