I say that as the rest of the world progresses at a rapid pace towards full industrialization and we begin to face competition from places we have never encountered before--All i really need to say is China -- we find ourselves in a dangerous position. Dependent on others who do not hold our best interest at heart and in ever increasing competition from our slowly but surely rising competitors.
If we do not develop effective forms in regards to renewable energy sources then we will watch our economy begin to falter and collapse.
With the push towards these solutions badly needed technologies we will create industries and employment opportunities to help solidify the American Dream for future generations.
If we are able to remove our dependence on oil and find ways to not just replace it at home BUT market it to an evermore power hungry world we will place ourselves above our competition and gain their business as well. This will most importantly remove our dependency on others and even bring some to depend on our energy products to support their own societies?
I believe government support in research of such technologies for our commercial markets is a worthy national goal.

Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?

Is the idea sound and would it benefit America both nationally and globally?

Should the goverment put more money into private company research for these goals?

Christopher-

I wholeheartedly agree. We must break our addiction to hydrocarbon fuels before it breaks us. Our ultimate goal should be zero emission, renewable energy sources- solar, wind, and hydrogen fuel cell come to mind (am I missing others?).

In the short term, conservation, efficiency measures, bio fuels, etc will help ease the transition and lower the economic cost. An America producing renewable, and exportable energy will not only be prosperous economically, but will contribute to sustainable capitalism. Capitalism is comprised of land, labor, and capital- degrading the productive capacity of any of these inputs hurts the economy in the long run- the pollution damage from our oil-based economy damages the land- therefore damaging our economy.

Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?

Is the idea sound and would it benefit America both nationally and globally?

Self-sufficiency has many benefits. For one, being less dependent on the resources of other nations makes them less tempting to mess with. Our unwanted presence in a sovereign nation causes hostility and puts our national security at risk.

Also, if we could export more than we import, we would be bringing more money into the nation, and therefore improve our economy. If we can reduce our imports of energy, we would also become more resistant or even immune to fluctuations in its cost. This would give us a competitive edge if our costs are relatively stable as the oil prices rise.

Should the government put more money into private company research for these goals?
It would help, but I feel that it would be more effective to offer a comprehensive cost-sharing system. For example, the State of New Jersey offers to pay for 70% of the cost for solar panels on a residential home. This allows more people to afford it, therefore increasing sales, which puts money into the pockets of the solar panel manufacturers, thereby giving them an incentive for innovation. Just handing out free money for research is difficult, as the results are often too subjective, and it gives the government potentially more influence than the company or the public regarding who gets what amount for which project.

By comprehensive, I mean that such a system needs to be able to be applied to other energy sources as well, though not necessarily proportionally equal. It also needs to be inviting to new ideas, so that companies may invest into deeper research knowing that, if successful, they are likely to benefit from similar incentive programs.

It always amazes me when I think of how inefficient our machines are compared to the natural machines, such as our bodies. Our fuel is the food we eat, and our waste is fertilizer. In other words, the process of using the fuel is part of the process of making it. I wonder if we could duplicate that.

Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?

I'm not sure that we need to control the global markets, rather than just satisfy our own needs. Export is always good though

Is the idea sound and would it benefit America both nationally and globally?
Not only is it sound, but in the long term alternative and/or renewable energy will be a necessity. This is a "goal" nearly all of us can agree on I'd bet. The unfortunate thing is the devil is in the details...
- We're way (hats off to the Danes and neighbors in this arena) behind in harnessing the wind, unfortunately it will hurt property values in Nantucket and kill about 3 seagulls a year...
- We're way behind in nuclear power, but best estimates are a minimum of 10 to 20 years to get the first one online. And NIMBY mind you... I can nearly see TMI out one window and Peach Bottom out the other
- Although the CO2 generated by alcohol combustion is less per BTU than that for oil or natural gas, it's still CO2...

Should the government put more money into private company research for these goals?Absolutely. I was really hoping to hear a Kennedy-esqe challenge, complete with funding and tax incentives. We developed a multitude of offshoot technologies during the Mercury-Apollo programs, many of which we enjoy the offspring of today. (except maybe Tang). I'm willing to bet none of us can today imagine the technology that might be gained from a "no holds barred" energy development program.
Just think if we could create a bacterium that can break down something and release hydrogen, like yeast does to CO2. Even better if it could do it from some "undesirable" material.

So many other issues could be resolved by breaking free of our oil dependency. Unfortunately, every alternative has it's downside. The major hurdle will be to make the new energy sources profitable. Looking at it from the corporate perspective, as long as the money lies in oil, what incentive is there for the development other energy sources.

Wind and solar offer little hope for widespread use. I see nuclear power as an attainable, smart, clean and safe method to meet the majority of our needs. It'll take a few years to establish, but it could definitely work.

I say YES! to all three of the questions posed by Christopher.

Great ideas but lets be realistic. COST is a big factor in alternative energy. One energy expert on FOX the other day said if we are willing to pay the equivalent of $3.00 per gallon for gas indefinably we can pretty much have what we want. If that price is a problem then the government would have to subsidize the efforts with 100s of billions for years to come.

I say move forward. We have been talking about this for too long. Time to DO something.

One comment about “hydrogen” cars and fuel cells. Fuel cells use gasoline (to make hydrogen) and hydrogen production requires LOTS of electricity. To think that the production of same, without a massive increase in nuclear or other power alternatives, is clean is an illusion. Bottom line again is “how much are you willing to pay”.

Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?

I think that at the very least we must have the infrastructure to create a majority of our own energy, be it through wind, solar, bio-diesel, hydro, ocean, hydrogen, or nuclear. We can (and will have to for quite some time) still use oil, but some of the main systems that use it can be replaced or scaled down.

I'm not sure as to how we would control a global market, but I suppose we could develop new technologies to transport, create, and store energy. The Dutch (I think) are generally held as the most cutting edge with wind energy. Perhaps we could work on better solar panels, more efficient energy storage and transport, or develope and implement new technologies (like ocean-power, using the constant motion of tides and waves to create energy method 1, method 2).

Is the idea sound and would it benefit America both nationally and globally?

Yes, for reasons above.

Should the government put more money into private company research for these goals?

Yes, private and otherwise. I think there should also be tax cuts for companies who use alternative power, produce alternative power, and research it. Additionally, people who buy hybrids and use other alt. power forms should be given rewards. Incentives such as lower taxes or less tax refunds, ect. should be given to those who decide to these technologies succeed. I bet we would have a lot more hybrid cars and lot less useless SUV's and Hummers if there were incentives to buy them.

Don't give up so fast. Take your average suburban house, make sure one side of the roof is slanted, free of obstruction, and facing south. Cover it end to end with solar panels rather than shingles. The house will then be supplying more energy to the grid than it needs to take from the grid during the off-hours (ie: night, cloudy). Solar panels are absolutely ready for widespread use, the biggest obstacle being the initial cost.

I see your point, but I do not think the complaint here is about the price of gas. Cost is an obstacle, but the object is energy independence.

So true. It appears that most people don't realize that hydrogen fuel cells are only storing a source of power, not magically creating it. And unless we find a massive reserve of hydrogen that isn't being used in a nuclear reaction in a massive ball of plasma, we will have to produce it. Also, it will take more energy to produce a fuel cell than that cell could produce, unless we brake certain laws of physics.

But wait, we don't need to throw the technology out the window. Aside from the potential benefits of centralizing the energy production (from the car, as it is today, to a fuel cell plant) there is an interesting application of this technology with respect to energy independence. We could use energy from the Sun to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen of a water molecule. Then, we can take the resulting emissions (water vapor) and separate them again. However, I doubt that we could do this on a large scale.

Cost is more than just an obstacle. If this technology is going to gain widespread use, it's going to have to be done by private corporations. In order for that to happen, the technology must be profitable as well.

It's my opinion that this issue is all for naught. The reason I say so is because this whole 'we need renewable energy and fast' routine is solely due to Bush's SOTU speech a few days back. I'd have to research it I guess, but I'd like to know how many 'we need to focus on renewable energy' threads there were before Bush's speech made reference to it. Of course I may be completely incorrect about this.
Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?
I'm not sure if there was a poor choice of words or just incredible naivetee. Whatever the case, yes I think anyone who controls the world's energy markets is a very powerful person indeed.
Should the government put more money into private company research for these goals?
I don't think so because I don't believe in the 'peak oil' issue. They ought to put money into the ultra-deep wells the Russians have been drilling for over 30 years now. They have found and recovered oil far below the earth's mantle in areas of the world in which the so-called best and brightest in the US oil industry informed people that there simply was no oil under their feet anywhere. The White Tiger oil patch in Vietnam is a reference.

Well obviously this is catalyzed by by the speech. How many new "terrorism" threads are there since the speech? Probably none. The very fact that he brings it up and makes it an issue is good wether or not anything gets done. It's good despite the possibility of nothing come of it because it gets people interested in the idea and starts others thinking. I would hope that there will be legislation to encourage this and that Bush isn't just pandering. Who knows, maybe he's looking to get into the renewable energy business and help some of his elite...er, base.

Last year he talked about Hydrogen Fueled cars (or was it two years ago?) and the necessity for more development; so it's not the first time he's talked about new energy sources. I just hope he isn't blowing smoke and full of hot air.

Let me explain what was going through my mind when I said that. Before the US illegally invaded Iraq, there were oodles of lies being spread through the US mainstream media. All the lies revolved around the US being attacked with WMD, but one in particular made me wonder. The media changed focus to "third party dirty bomb" attacks. So when I get to the war forum, one person said "well I don't think it's going to happen like this, I think the chance of a 3rd party dirty bomb is much more likely....". And I thought: "holy crud some Americans are g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e. That's what was on my mind when I wrote that.

I understand why you think that some people may be picking up on the energy issue solely due to the SOTU speech, but for a lot of people it has been a hot issue for a long time now.

As long as we are financially tied to the middle east and reliant on them to oil, terrorism will continue and we will be forced to play an active role in that region. That's why we legaly invaded Iraq.

Even if that were true, that is the part of the purpose of SOTU speeches.

"The President shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
US Constitution, Article II, Section 3

Would the development of renewable energy technologies with the dual goals of self sufficiency by replacing petroleum and controlling global markets make us more secure and prosperous as a nation?
Prosperous? Energy is energy. You're going to pay for it no matter what it is. If it's not with importation, then it's with production or maintenance or subsidies. Secure? Possibly. For a little while. But it will always be something. Oil is driving American meddling now. In the future it may be clean freshwater sources or potash or currency exchanges (or terrorism). American meddling will happen. If oil is removed from the picture, we should expect to see that there are hundreds of other areas of the global economy previously unknown which are being manipulated. We also shouldn't forget that even if we turn away from oil, there are many other countries which will likely not. Without America as a competing buyer, China will be the huge elephant-in-the-room oil importer, and could quite possibly follow the U.S.'s lead in dealing with oil producers. That's kind of chilling.

Is the idea sound and would it benefit America both nationally and globally?
Sure. The benefits of transitioning from an energy economy based on oil to one based on other sources should be obvious even without the national security argument. But it should be noted that oil sources are not exclusively from unfriendly nations, not even by half.

Should the goverment put more money into private company research for these goals?
I was particularly interested in the president's comment on cellulose-based ethanol (switch? grass), which is lower cost in both money and energy than traditional ethanol sources. It's a pipe dream at this point, but interesting for exploration. The only way technologies like these are going to develop is with government assistance. Private companies require infrastructure, and the phone and cable line rackets have shown that it doesn't always pay to run semi-private commodity thoroughfares.

Not the best worded question. But I'll emphasis independance over regulation any day of the week.

QUOTE

The reality is what is best for the world is not in america's best interest. You've presented an unsound idea. The value of the u.s. dollar is tied to the dollar more closely than other currencies. This means, when oil is cheap the economy has easy access and does well. The reverse is also true. The problem people have been experiencing is that as oil rises, it brings other commodities up with it. Market manipulation is the problem not the solution.

Now if countries want to buy oil they must do so with american dollars. Take away this aspect for any reason and the energy crunch will intensify.



Yes and no. Yes he should make tax incentives but no I would not recommend individual investment in type A company. Level the field so an entire industry can emerge.