Jon Stewart on Energy Independence: “Fool me eight times, am I a f****** idiot?”

David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog.com ^ | June 21, 2010 | MICHAEL VAN DER GALIEN

[Rhonda Robinson]

Reason Magazine rightfully praises comedian Jon Stewart – the only man who’s actually willing to ask inconvenient questions every now and then – for taking America’s politicians to task for talking about making the country energy independent, but doing exactly nothing to actually achieve this lofty goal.

America’s, and the West’s as a whole, dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a tremendous weakness. There’s no reason not to develop alternative energy resources. In fact, the opposite is even true: our oil dollars are used to either keep dictatorial regimes in place or to fund the very terrorist organizations who have declared war on us and our way of life – or both. By buying oil, then, we are strengthening and enriching our enemies. If that isn’t the very definition of a stupid foreign policy, I don’t know what is.

[P.O.E.]

Criminy, must’ve fallen asleep on the keyboard again

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Dick Cheney killed the electric car. With his bare hands.

[what's up]

Stewart is a smarmy, stinky celeb who thinks he's an intellectual.

He'll say this today, but when actual drilling proposals are on the table by someone like Palin, he'll turn on her and say she's an idiot.

Stewart's as sick as Bill Maher.

[antivenom]

Stewart is a cynic...and I have never met a cynic who can take a side in anything.

[MagnoliaB]

...’blind squirrel’...

[Stand Watch Listen]

[jiggyboy]

ah we haven't seen this one in a while

[equalitybeforethelaw]

There are only two things we could do to achieve energy independence: (1) develop nuclear for the majority of our electrical needs (all minus hydro supply), and (2) develop synthetic oil using our coal reserves. We would end up spending less per Kw of electricity but more per gallon of gas under this approach. Nowhere in this plan is there any thought of spending billions directly or indirectly through tax credits for solar or ethanol. If we are serious we will accept $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon for gas to achieve synthetic (cleaner) transportation fuel. This would permit us to use natural gas as our primary heating and cooking fuel. Drilling for oil would have to be a piece of this plan to offset the full cost of synthetic fuel. At this point, I don’t see anyone in the Dem party willing to sell this idea. Rather, I see the Dem party foursquare against it. So while the comediene is funny, he doesn’t identify why politics will not allow a rational answer to an identified need. It is staring us in the face, yet we cannot move because of the enviro hustlers.

[divine_moment_of_facts]

Excellent.

[truthguy]

And you mean like “Who killed the electric car?”

This is a subject that comes up from time to time and every time I hear anyone mention this silly video, I feel compelled to comment. There is so much misinformation on this topic.

In the words of Bob Lutz: "...no one killed the electric car, it was DOA".

If GM killed the car why didn't Honda or any of the Japanese manufacturers take the ball and run? It seems if as they missed out on an opportunity.

The EV1 didn't go into production because battery technology wasn't ready for it. GM only built 1100 EV1s and they were leased to customers at incredibly cheap prices as part of an experiment. So those who wined that GM took the cars back were told that from the beginning that this was a limited lease. GM would have needed to charge $80K for a 2-Seater electric when gas was much cheaper. They would have lost a fortune if they had tried to put the EV1 into production at that time. Also the EV1 did not pass Dept of Transportation Crash Tests and the Feds would NOT ALLOW it to go into production.

Of course none of these facts get into that stupid video. It's nothing more than pure left wing propaganda and if you believe the thrust of that video you are a major league fool.

[Mamzelle]

re: Stewart is a smarmy, stinky celeb who thinks he's an intellectual.)))

I despise him for a coward and a hypocrite, as well. He regularly bashes Christians and blasphemes--but he turns into a quivering mass of terror when someone says "Mohammed."

But he has a lot of influence over a particular kind of ignorant, drug-abusing audience, the kind that would otherwise just get stoned rather than vote. Thanks to Stewart, this stoner crowd voted.

[truthguy]

An excellent post and an excellent analysis. I couldn't agree with you more. I'd only add that we can also get liquid fuels using natural gas as a feedstock. You can also produce synthetic fuel from natural gas using the Fischer Tropsch process. But you have nailed it and I've said the same thing on this site time and again.

Solar and Wind are a joke and would go away without government subsidies. Besides neither of these technologies does a thing for transportation.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Exactly. The "documentary" is an illogical farce.

No one killed the electric car. It was dead on arrival.

[dfwgator]

And just where does the energy come from that fuels the electricity necessary to charge the batteries?

[Red Dog #1]

Three TRILLION barrels of oil reserves in the US alone. That’s right, enough for 300 years!http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html

[RoadTest]

“talking about making the country energy independent, but doing exactly nothing”

It’s worse - they work AGAINST drilling for American oil!

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Obama’s “stash”!

[colorado tanker]

And there’s even more in nearby Canada and Mexico.

[wbill]

no one killed the electric car, it was DOA"

Electric cars (based on current tech) will fail for two reasons:

1. A battery - as it exists today - just doesn't store as much energy as a tankful of gas.

2. There's no way to quickly transfer a large amount of electricity to a battery, even if one that was big enough existed.

I can buy that a better battery will be invented. What I can't buy is that there will be a way to charge it....to *rapidly* get an enormous amount of electricity from some sort of a supply to the car would require conductors about as thick as my thigh, and about as flexible. Never mind the danger involved in handling such high voltage equipment.

Add to that an infrastructure that's already ridiculously overtaxed (to the point of brownouts in the summer) and the idea that "we'll just put electric cars on the road" becomes foolishness.

Maybe 30 years from now it might be something to think about, but it ain't gonna happen much sooner than that. No matter how much libs wish it was so.

[truthguy]

There's so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start. You seem to be a little behind the times.

Recent advances in Lithium Ion technology have made electric cars feasible. We will be seeing the first practical ones this fall with the Nissan Leaf (all electric) and the Chevrolet Volt (EREV-the most promising technology).

These batteries are much more reliable and battery technology is moving very fast.

Most charging will be done overnight when there's capacity on the grid. So that's not a problem, at least initially.

The Volt's battery will be guaranteed for 100K. The Volt has by far the most potential and can be used for more than a commuter car such as the Leaf. I don't have time to cover the details but why not bone up on it:

http://gm-volt.com/

You will be impressed.