Deja vu on energy

The comment I like to hear from Obama and his uspporters is drilling off-shore will not produce any oil for 10 years or more. I think that is the conventional wisdom. It is a good thing Obama wasn't around when we started working on the atomic bomb during WWII. We completed that is less than 4 years from a dead start. Would we have landed on the moon in less than nine years after Kennedy annouced the moon program if Obama and the naysayers were around? I have more confidence than that in America. If we want more energy, we have the creativity and the know how to find it. Obama is wed to Democrat ideology and special interests. He cannot approve of new drilling or nuclear policy without losing the environmentalists and fringe left. Better to blame Bush and McCain until after the election. He really is Dr. No!

Obama never has any real ideas, he just says a great line like "we need to come together". Drilling will produce hundreds of new jobs and will increase the supply of oil. The more you have the less it costs. Sounds simple to me.

The nice thing about setting goals nearly 20 years in the future is you won't be around (especially true for McCain) to take the heat if they don't work out the way you said they would. For McCain to suddenly become the energy innovator who has the answers to our high gas prices is just shows what an opportunistic piece of work he really is.

Jeff.

This isn't about faith in America. It's about reality. There isn't that much oil out there anyway. Drilling offshore shouldn't even be a hot button issue, because the fact is it wouldn't do a whole lot to fix our problems even if the oil started flowing tomorrow.

I also have confidence in the ability and creativity of our people to solve our energy problems. I also think that the really CREATIVE and forward-looking ones realize that the solution isn't going to come in the form of more oil.

Or maybe the money that would be used for off-shore drilling and exploration could be used for developing alternative fuels and more efficient engines rather then destroying our coastlines and spending even more money on the very same non-renewable fuel source that got us into this mess in the first place. As far as Nuclear power plants go I don't see Obama rejecting them outright everything I have read indicates that the problem is with the waste .ie spent fuel rods and how and where to dispose of them. I myself work in the nuclear industry I have no fear of nuclear powerplants however the concerns about what to do with hazardous waste produced by these facilities is a valid concern.

Everything else in your comment is speculation not worthy of reply as there have always been Naysayers around. Also Obama, born 1961 was around during the moon landings 1969-1972 so your point is?

The push for more exploration and drilling in the US as a way to "solve" our energy problems has been around since at least 1973, when we had our first "crisis." In its very earliest days, wags dubbed it the "Drain America First" plan. During the entire intervening period, our use of foreign oil has only grown. Energy independence becomes more unrealistic with each passing year, and we can't head in the right direction until we admit that to ourselves. If we are addicted to oil, desperately seeking a few more off-shore "fixes" won't help much.

What about the wide swaths of available drilling sites the oil companies already have, yet aren't using?

What about the market effects of speculation on the prices of oil?

Nobody seems to mention those. And those 2 little things define the problem.

This whole "new drilling" debate is a smoke screen and a blame game

Oil is the past, just like McCain. Hydrogen and other currently Alternative energy sources are the futre, just like Obama.

Congress held a hearing today and the invited experts put everything in perspective. We will need oil,and lots of it, for a long time. The experts also indicated a mix of alternative energy sources will be needed as well. What this is leading to is an energy compromise. Even Senator Schumer seemed to agree. Whether it is coal gasification, shale oil, off-shore drilling, and/or nuclear, these are going to have to be part of the mix. These will be needed along with alternative energy sources to provide us with the energy we need. However, alternative fuels are currently only a small part of our energy mix. We better stop arguing and start planning our energy strategy. Brazil with its 185 million citizens, and apparently politicians and an electorate smarter than ours became energy independent with a mix of ethanol and oil production. We could import Brazilian ethanol if Obama and others would agree to drop the import tariff. Show me a plan that works and that will benefit the people ,and not the politicians, and I'm ready to support it. Before the end of the summer, Dr. No (Obama) may be ready for a flip-flop. The latest poll is 76% of Americans support more drilling. If you don't like that, come up with some viable concrete short term and long term solutions to counter this trend.

Ok, let me see if I got this right. We are paying less for the oil we pull out of the ground here in the U.S., right? So if by some kind of magic next year we had a bunch of new oil refineries pumping oil in the United States we would all benefit by getting lower gas prices. The people who are reaping in billions of dollars profit will cut the American people a break. Is that the logic? They have been raping this country for years and now they want even more. They have got our collective heads in a vice and figure now is a great time to push for more refineries. The next part of this plan will probably be requiring more tax breaks because (wahh) they have to build my refineries! Sorry, but it's actually Dr. Hell No!

"Oil is the past, just like McCain. Hydrogen and other currently Alternative energy sources are the futre, just like Obama. "

McCain is the one that wants to further nuclear energy and battery technology. Obama has said very little about it, although he did mention electric trains across the mid-west at one point.

I hope to see more nuclear reactors in America, like France, Norway and other countries have. And I hope we can improve our battery technology so that they charge faster and last longer. We can have practical electric cars any time we want. Any time the automakers feel confident in manufacturing them.

All options need to be on the table, we can’t afford the luxury of ruling out any alternative plan for energy independence.

To quote Wilhelm Hall,

"It's difficult in the U.S. In the long term, there's no vision or plan. "

Whereas in Europe, there's more public and political will for both a liquid and gas (hydrogen) infrastructure."

Is our dependence on fossil fuels creating a dangerous world for the U.S? Is it destroying our economy? Is global warming real?

In my opinion the answer is a resounding YES.

What does it take for the U.S. congress to act responsibly?

"It's difficult in the U.S. In the long term, there's no vision or plan.”

The greatest nation on the planet and the U.S. congress (our elected leaders) can't work out a plan that will move us to energy independence.

Did we really elect you to investigate baseball scandals?

If you people want a lasting legacy, something meaningful; get on with the people’s business and do something that will make this country the envy of the world, create a sound energy policy/plan.

I’ll give you a hint.

Short-term plan:

Legislate rules that will stop frivolous lawsuits that block construction or exploration of resources.

Stream line the existing permitting process.

Use the permitting process to mandate reasonable and achievable safeguards for construction and exploration.

I live on this planet; I wouldn’t want my world destroyed by an unscrupulous industry.

Use coal gasification as a stopgap while developing new technologies to produce electricity. It’s cleaner than the current use of coal

and we can capture a percentage of the pollutants and store them in the ground today.

Require increased mileage standards of the auto industry, although I expect to see increases due to demand from the buying public.

Build new or update refineries to the latest technologies to minimize our dependence on imported gas as a finished product.

In today’s business world it is not cost effective to have business travelers riding around on fuel guzzling airplanes when they can meet virtually.

Encourage industry to use Virtual office, and meetings, remove the tax incentives that allow them to travel for meetings. That Internet is really something isn’t Mr. Gore.

Long-term plan:

Build Nuclear power plants to generate electricity using the latest technologies. Even the Europeans can do it safely; I'm not a fan of France but they are an example.

Use our colleges to explore alternative energy sources. We subsidize most of them; we may as well expect something for the dollars spent.

Provide incentives to industry to dedicate a larger percentage of their R&D money to find more efficient energy sources. (Real world applications, not vaporware that never produces actual returns.)

Look to alternative energy sources,

Solar

Hydrogen

Bio (E85) is not practical as it is today because of competing interest food versus fuel.

Build infrastructure:

Electric transmission lines

Gas pipelines

High-speed rail 300mph, not those that exist today in the U.S.

This took me about fifteen minutes to create, I’m sure that with all the tax money floating around Washington you can probably do a better job than I did; well maybe that is if you decide to work on the people’s business for a few minutes.

Steve C.

Sent to my governor and congressional delegation.