Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And today with all the passing of presidents in office the nation has not moved forward in an alternative energy plan (to my knowledge) why?
Because the US has plenty of energy, that's why.
What the US needs is liquid fuels, like gasoline, diesel oil and kerosene and non-kerosene based aviation fuels, not energy.
The US can go hydo and nuclear and provide energy for more than 4,300 years. If the US uses (plutonium-based) breeder reactors, it can provide energy forever.
Simply put, there won't be a nation if we just turn off the tap without alternatives in place.
There aren't any. Coal gasification provide diesels (not gasoline) and synthetic oil, which cannot be refined and as a result, cannot produce the vast variety of non-gasoline products people need that come from heavy, intermediate and light grade oils.
Everyone is married to oil and the life and jobs it provides them. Sure, you can divorce yourself from oil, but only at great cost and expense, like fewer jobs and a "lower" standard of living (although in my opinion there was nothing wrong with the standard of living in the 1960s.)
high gas prices are not caused by arab source. they are caused by falling value of wages. alternative energy is a green concept but is unrelated to the falling value of our money. france is energy self sufficient but still has high gas prices.
a labor movement and a strong energy program coupled with reducing deficit spending and trading would resolve much.
Do you know why, or do you just rip on Republicans because it's fun, without investigating the facts surrounding the statements you make?
Ah, so it was a maintenance issue...
So when did Clinton install new solar panels? He was there for eight years - there was plenty of time for the Democrat Darling to greenify the White House, right?
We all know that the Democrat party is the party of ecological responsibility. The Republicans don't care if they destroy the environment, as long as they stand to make a few bucks off it.
So when did Clinton install those solar panels again?
The Democrats believe they're the stewards of the land and of the environment. They pride themselves on making environmentally correct choices, so that their children and grandchildren will have a safe, clean environment.
I'm drawing a blank here... Clinton put those panels in in the 5th year of his presidency? No, wait.. it was the 7th year...
Well of course I can understand that there would be a maintenance problem, however is removal the only answer or is a repair something that could be considered?
I wasn’t aware of Clinton having any solar panels… thanks for being that out.
How about Cheney’s energy plan and his meeting, could you point me to where I can get some inside information on his energy plan, or is that sealed for now?
Some of these facts just never get brought out on FOX news.
Liberals want to make sure we continue to dump all of our money into the middle east for oil instead if trying to keep some of the money in the states. Somehow they must think it's bad to keep more money and jobs in the states. So in the meantime while the hypocritical liberals (most liberals not all) keep whining about CEO's in this country the saudi princes will driving these on our coin. Yes, it's completely covered in diamonds.
Yes, the price of oil has come down. How about the Enron Loophole that some members of congress have chosen to ignore? Some members appear hell-bent to maintain this damaging (to the general public) deregulation.
Besides this despicable situation all new 'green' technologies will be subject to the status quo unless the regulations are restored.They had been in effect since 1982.
Is this link something a particular political party chooses to ignore or degrade?
Plug-in hybrids are also excellent even though you use fossil fuels to fuel it.
The interesting thing about this is that if cars were hybrid and plug in and we will, probably soon, have batteries that will prolong the driving range of these cars, we will then only have to deal with the electric power at source.
There are places near oceans who use wave power.
There is geothermal.
So, possibly our electricity can come from various sources, depending on were we are located.
Come on. You're seriously comparing the US with Iceland? You can't get more apples and oranges than that. The US has almost four times as many people as the second most populous country on that list, and being a heavily industrialized nation, we use a lot of energy.
The fact that Iceland is leading in alternative energy production is absolutely meaningless. Also, I thought France was running entirely on nuclear... that's what I've been hearing, but I haven't checked it out personally.
That's the way we should be headed, by the way. Solar, wind et al are all fine and dandy, and I'm all for using them wherever and whenever we can, but they're simply not up to the task of providing our country with the juice it requires. We need more nuclear power. I know it's not all warm and fuzzy and it doesn't taste good with granola, but it's the only realistic solution to our energy production problems, particularly if the automotive industry is going to be switching over to electric (e.g. "plug-in hybrids").
The fact is that the US has an environment in one or the other of our regions, to match the conditions that these countries have in their alternative of choice.
I don't remember anyone having said we should be locked in to any one mode of energy supply, so I don't know where you are trying to go with that comment.
When we have allocated the R&D to alternates the way we should have YEARS ago, and exhausted EVERY alternate, then and only then will I consider polluting methods.
Nuclear, right now, is a nightmare waiting to happen. There is no guaranteed safe way of storing the spent fuel. We know there have to be accidents - unpredictable earthquakes, etc.
I do agree, though, that it would be wise to have fewer people.
I’d have to disagree about liberals wanting oil from the middle east and money going out of the country. Liberals don’t want offshore drilling and to use the area already set aside for the oil industry to use. However they don’t want to drill in those areas for some reason.
Most liberals want union made goods, services and jobs made and provided here in the states and not coming in from off shore manufacturing. Most liberals get angry because CEO salaries are 400+ times higher then that of the average wage of the employee within the company they control.
If we as a nation don’t get off of the foreign oil then we will continue to transfer our wealth to Arab nations who will buy and own our nation’s properties and wealth.
Liberals want a better environment for our children and grandchildren and they want to protect it with alternative energy where and when possible. Our government doesn’t care enough to invest in the future of our nation then who will? I guess its that foreign corporations from Spain that is engineering and building the large solar panels covering hundreds of acres in the southwest area of Arizona. Why American corporations didn’t or couldn’t engineer and build this I have not idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oil
