New energy policy for America.

[dumpster56]

Build 3 Nuclear Power plants per state. It would revive the economy, it would put the arabs in Opec on notice that we here in the states will have as much electric power as we need. Let the Chinese buy the stinkin oil!

Heck the arabs were sided with the Nazis durig WWII

the country and people that helped americans the SERBS have been given the shaft by the americans now, and china gets most favored trade status, they are awful when it comes to human rights.

 

[Razor]

I agree. It takes a long time to build a power plant, so they better get started right now. They can even put one in my backyard.

 

[Arc]

It really is about time we do something here! It's absurd that we are so willing to continue the reliance on foreign oil!

 

[chinaco]

Nuclear, Coal, Coal Gasification, Ethanol, and Bio-Diesel .

All are viable intermediate term solutions and in the strategic and economic interest of the country to develop.

I would rather spend my $ putting Americans to work than send the money to our enemies.

We might as well face it... most of the rest of the world is jealous and hates us. Our only real allies are the UK and the other former British colonies.

 

[dumpster56]

Seriously can you imagine what the saudis and the traders in oil would do the day the president gives a speech outlining the building of those nuke plants the telling the world we would be weaning America from the Arab Opec oil JONES we have!!

 

[jazz4cash]

Just making the announcement would drop oil by 6-8% (on the day of the annoucement)

 

[hankster]

I've worked in electric power generation for 29 years and I have to agree that we need to free ourselves from the oil dependence by going with nuclear plants. "All we are saying is give nukes a chance"

 

[ladelfina]

Interesting: the "Gaia" theory guy is pro-nuke.

'Enjoy life while you can' | Environment | The Guardian

Do Cheney and GW not have brokers who know how to short?
(no more hand-holding with Prince Bandar, tho'...)

 

[chinaco]

I am all for energy independence. This problem has haunted us for the last 35 years. Time to act.

 

[FinanceDude]

Nuclear, Coal, Coal Gasification, Ethanol, and Bio-Diesel .

All are viable intermediate term solutions and in the strategic and economic interest of the country to develop.

I would rather spend my $ putting Americans to work than send the money to our enemies.

We might as well face it... most of the rest of the world is jealous and hates us. Our only real allies are the UK and the other former British colonies.

Ethanol will bankrupt the American consumer........and the crappy E-85 will ruin our engines.......that's NOT the answer I was looking for..........

 

[donheff]

This is one of the few areas I join the loyal opposition on. We should have been doing this since the 70s energy crisis. We could already be energy independent. Unfortunately, I don't see any mainstream interest in it even though it is an order of magnitude more attuned to national security than shoe searches at the airport..

 

[dumpster56]

Ethanol will bankrupt the American consumer........and the crappy E-85 will ruin our engines.......that's NOT the answer I was looking for..........

I told you we are thinking the same here!!!

E85 what a dumbarse product!! Corn should be used to feed HUMANS! NOT combustion engines!

What probably will happen If McCain is elected he would institute a draft put 5 million men in uniform and tell the saudis that we are going to take the oil. If Obama is elected we will be sitting in gasoline lines after price controls are instituted on gasoline. If Clinton is elected the price of gasoline will hit 8+ a gallon and we will settle into a real funk..

There are no answers by our politicians, no vision. Get a real good high mileage vehicle, move closer to your job if you need one, get rid of the dumb NATURAL GAS FIREPLACE put in a wood stove if you live in a cold climate, grow veggies maybe even raise some chickens.

Its all good gang all good. Oh and get some candles for light at night when the time comes that we don't have enough electricity.

The country is broken and we will be going backwards in living standards sooner than later.

 

[Arc]

There are no answers by our politicians, no vision. .

The answers and vision lie within the capital markets! The politicians only get in the way. Nothing wrong with a little oversight but blocking progress in this area really is unconscionable.

 

[Rivrider]

It amazes me that energy independence isn't a higher priority for our country. Other countries are determining the price of our energy. We are also funding our enemies in some cases.

IMHO, we should be persuing multiple sources of energy, nuclear, cleaner coal, wind, solar, etc. more that we are now. Should also be working to be more efficient.

 

[fluffy]

I'll chime in too... In addition to other non-fossil fuel technologies already mentioned, solar (especially solar thermal) should be emphasized. Just doing a back of the envelope number crunching using Arizona to become 'Persian Gulf' of solar energy - CNN.com as the example:

The $1B solar thermal plant in that article will generate electricity for 70,000 households. Assuming there're roughly 100,000,000 households in US, at that cost it'd take 1,400 * $1B = $1.4 trillion to get all of those households to be switched entirely to solar thermal electricity. Obviously that's oversiplifying things -- not every state is blessed with Arizona's abundance of sun and I believe the $1B cost of this plant includes considerable subsidies. But on the other hand, the economies of scale and improvements in technology would make this approach more affordable per watt if it were to be scaled at national level.

$1.4 trillion is A LOT of money but considering that the Iraq war alone already cost $500B by official estimates and (a lot more by unofficial estimates), I'd say $1.4 trillion spent entirely in US on solar termal and, in parallel, a significant push for plug-in hybrids is not a terribly high price to pay. In addition to making US permanently energy independent it would also partially or completely solve most of our other issues: foreign policy (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others will no longer be able to use oil/gas for political leverage), trade deficit/weak dollar (over 30% of trade deficit is due to petroleum imports), inflation (in energy as well as in food -- corn can go back to being a food instead of a fuel), not to mention the climate change! And of course there's no need to immediately replace all of the existing electricity generation with solar thermal -- simply ensuring that all or most of new capacity is solar/renewable and slow phase-out of old fossil-fuel based capacity will make a huge difference.

Again, I don't profess to appreciate all the difficulties involved in putting something like this plan into action but I refuse to believe that they are so great as to make it unworkable. It'd be an effort on par with the Iraq war in terms of costs but with many fewer deaths and many more benefits.

 

[Texas Proud]

Heck the arabs were sided with the Nazis durig WWII

Now.... this is a new one on me.... an opening post and the NAZIS all in one...

 

[FinanceDude]

I had a chemist friend of mins explain the ethanol production process in layman's terms for me.............

Turns out you STILL need a BOATLOAD of energy to break down the corn, and a BOATLOAD of energy to move the ethanol to a central area, more energy to ship it to the terminal, and MORE energy to get it to the service station...........

How is THAT doing us any good? Plus, I have heard NOONE talk about the fact that corn STEALS nitrogen from the soil, and WHY NOW would any farmer follow previous protocols and stagger the corn with soybeans to protect the soil? Dust Bowl anyone??

 

[dumpster56]

I'll chime in too... In addition to other non-fossil fuel technologies already mentioned, solar (especially solar thermal) should be emphasized. Just doing a back of the envelope number crunching using Arizona to become 'Persian Gulf' of solar energy - CNN.com as the example:

The $1B solar thermal plant in that article will generate electricity for 70,000 households. Assuming there're roughly 100,000,000 households in US, at that cost it'd take 1,400 * $1B = $1.4 trillion to get all of those households to be switched entirely to solar thermal electricity. Obviously that's oversiplifying things -- not every state is blessed with Arizona's abundance of sun and I believe the $1B cost of this plant includes considerable subsidies. But on the other hand, the economies of scale and improvements in technology would make this approach more affordable per watt if it were to be scaled at national level.

$1.4 trillion is A LOT of money but considering that the Iraq war alone already cost $500B by official estimates and (a lot more by unofficial estimates), I'd say $1.4 trillion spent entirely in US on solar termal and, in parallel, a significant push for plug-in hybrids is not a terribly high price to pay. In addition to making US permanently energy independent it would also partially or completely solve most of our other issues: foreign policy (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others will no longer be able to use oil/gas for political leverage), trade deficit/weak dollar (over 30% of trade deficit is due to petroleum imports), inflation (in energy as well as in food -- corn can go back to being a food instead of a fuel), not to mention the climate change! And of course there's no need to immediately replace all of the existing electricity generation with solar thermal -- simply ensuring that all or most of new capacity is solar/renewable and slow phase-out of old fossil-fuel based capacity will make a huge difference.

Again, I don't profess to appreciate all the difficulties involved in putting something like this plan into action but I refuse to believe that they are so great as to make it unworkable. It'd be an effort on par with the Iraq war in terms of costs but with many fewer deaths and many more benefits.

That is the real problem here. The Iraq war.Man what a darn embarrassment! What a lost possiblilty. the war industry wins again. the american people lose on all fronts. Heck the world is losing.

 

[Arc]

That is the real problem here. The Iraq war.Man what a darn embarrassment! What a lost possiblilty. the war industry wins again. the american people lose on all fronts. Heck the world is losing.

This issue very much pre-dates the Iraq war!

 

[chinaco]

I had a chemist friend of mins explain the ethanol production process in layman's terms for me.............

Turns out you STILL need a BOATLOAD of energy to break down the corn, and a BOATLOAD of energy to move the ethanol to a central area, more energy to ship it to the terminal, and MORE energy to get it to the service station...........

How is THAT doing us any good? Plus, I have heard NOONE talk about the fact that corn STEALS nitrogen from the soil, and WHY NOW would any farmer follow previous protocols and stagger the corn with soybeans to protect the soil? Dust Bowl anyone??

Ethanol can be produced from material other than corn and soybeans.

According to DOE switch grass is viable. Biofuels from Switchgrass: Greener Energy Pastures

Ethanol is a viable product because it can work with our current technology. It can be mixed with gasoline. We can produce enough of it help offset oil consumption. We do not have to be 100% ethanol.

E85 engines work fine. It is proven.

Pipelines are a bit of an issue (corrosion). But there is nothing to keep the ethanol plants from being located near regional distribution centers and mixed with gasoline more locally.

Something else that would help with the final product is for the US legislature to pass a bill that sets a nation-wide standard for a Gasoline standard instead of all the the different variations that states require.

We need to consider that there are certain intermediate term solutions and perhaps other long-term solutions.

We will be dependent of Oil for automobiles for the rest of our lives. But if we can reduce our purchases to Canada, US owned, and Mexico (possible a couple other friendly trading partners) we will be much better off.

Combine that with the techniques that are beginning to be employed with combustion engines and we can reduce our dependence.

As far as power plants go... There is little reason to use fuel oil. Other energy sources are available (coal and nuclear).

 

[ziggy29]

It amazes me that energy independence isn't a higher priority for our country. Other countries are determining the price of our energy. We are also funding our enemies in some cases.

IMHO, we should be persuing multiple sources of energy, nuclear, cleaner coal, wind, solar, etc. more that we are now. Should also be working to be more efficient.

Agreed. While I'm a pretty good free market libertarian, I take issue with the laissez-faire position on energy policy. Their idea is to just let "the market" decide when to develop alternatives. Given how long it takes to ramp up new technologies, if it REALLY hit the fan with oil, we'd be screwed for years. And would a severely damaged economy be able to handle the investments and production needed? Do it now while it's merely an inconvenience and an economic speed bump rather than a crisis, I'd think.

I believe energy security and independence are very real national security and sovereignty issues -- not just an economic issue.

 

[chinaco]

...

I believe energy security and independence are very real national security and sovereignty issues -- not just an economic issue.

I agree, it is economic and strategic (in terms of national security).

We have too many foes in the world that will disrupt the supply or keep the supply low on purpose. The instability it produces is not acceptable. The only people opposed to it is the people that benefit from the status quo.

 

[ERD50]

Just making the announcement would drop oil by 6-8% (on the day of the annoucement)

I doubt it. I'd bet that the demand from China and other developing countries would be increasing at a far faster rate than we would decrease our demand.

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

Though I strongly advocate energy independence (I'd like to see an energy Manhattan project), I'm concerned with the biofuels approach.

For one thing ethanol has long served as an excuse to not do more in other areas. For example, automakers got around CAFE rules for years by building E85 capable cars and trucks and taking the CAFE credit, when in reality there were virtually no actual E85 gas stations to fuel those vehicles. Now that E85 is actually starting to ramp up, it has the unintended consequence of driving up food prices worldwide due to diversion of corn to distilleries. Also, other food crops have been switched to corn for the increased profit potential, making them more expensive due to reduced supply.

Because ethanol is a world commodity, other countries such as Brazil have jumped on the bandwagon and started cutting down more rain forests to plant sugar cane to be used for alcohol. In the US, farmers are putting fallow land back into production and planting every available acre which has an adverse effect on wildlife that traditionally depended on this land for survival.

So while biofuels have some potential, I'd like to see the government develop the political will to foster other alternative sources of energy and let the market take it from there as the technologies mature. I don't think government should provide all the answers, but I do look to it to provide national security. How long would it have taken free enterprise to develop the atomic bomb?

 

[growing_older]

We have all kinds of tax policy and rules designed to encourage or discourage certain activities. There was even a tax credit (now starting to run out) to encourage hybrid electric vehicles. Using this same kind of economic incentive, we could encourage private installation of photo-voltaic systems which would greatly reduce demand for new power plans (and fuel consumption by existing plants). We are right on the edge of having plug in electric or hybrid vehicles, which could be charged from the same photo-voltaic systems.

In fact, right now the only thing I need is a large capital expenditure and willingness to rely on experimental systems and I could have a vehicle with ZERO fuel costs for urban use. As an individual it doesn't yet make economic sense for me, personally, but it's getting close. These technologies could be developed to mass market reliability and costs with a little focused energy policy and government assistance in pretty short time.