As oil tops $125/barrel lets look at US energy policy:

Questions for the debate:

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?
Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution?

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not.

5. Bonus question: If McCain takes the White House will it improve our chances for energy independence?

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?Yes, but forcing the states isn't necessary for federal territory beyond the state's control, it's simply the will of congress when it comes to federal control areas.

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?The American people will be the determining factor. I think the American people are at their limit right now. If oil supply remained constant it would not keep up with increased demand to meet our growth alone. Alternative energy is already widespread in the US and it has did little to reduce energy costs at the pump.

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?
Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution? The environmental lobby owns the Democratic Party and it is likely that the DP will be in charge of congress for the foreseeable future. The outlook is bleak, we have three candidates running for president that are against drilling in ANWAR and are pro environmental controls to avoid global warming. My guess is that if a Democrat is elected to the presidency the mid east oil supply will be disrupted by war as we leave the region. The people will rise up and kick the Democrats out of congress as punishment for $10 gas.

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not. America cannot function without ME oil and free flow of oil from Africa and the ME. We must return to war to resolve normal oil supply if it is disrupted by war.

5. Bonus question: If McCain takes the White House will it improve our chances for energy independence? I think this is the one issue besides foreign policy he has going for him. He is against drilling in ANWAR but for domestic drilling along with offshore drilling. If he can convince the American people doing the safe domestic energy exploration along with use of clean coal, nuclear and natural gas is their only hope for lower gas prices he will be elected.

Gee, the ignorance of the politics of this situation makes me laugh and laugh.

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?

Force who? Alaska? We are about 99% behind drilling in ANWR- I don't think the state will stand in the way of any drilling, and there is no lawmakers in state that wil keep thier jobs by saying otherwise. So, um, it shows great ingorance in your question about "forcing" the state to allow offshore or Alaskan drilling.

The only credible and formidible force against drilling up here is the Gwi'chn Indians- it is thier backyard, thier land. They need to be reassured, and taken care of- none of this double dealing crap we have done to American Indians in the past. Make sure they are covered.
They have very, very reasonable questions and demands dealing with thier livelihoods and culture and lifestyle. Not dealing with them fairly and in a sensitive manner is immoral and unethical.

Off shore drilling is probably not a problem at all- the other issue is that the pack ice is moving far off shore in the summer, and that is creating some legitimate enviromental issues and engineering challenges, when the sea ice returns in the winter- they are going to have to deal with those issues first- though I think the tech is there for it.

If you REALLY want to decrease prices and foriegn oil dependence- force the congress to force the oil companies to quit sitting on the MASSIVE natural gas reserves up here and build the pipeline to Calgary. You would see an IMMEDIATE effect upon that thing opening- I mean, it is just that massive- Saudi Arabia kind of massive. I would say tax the oil companies for NOT developing those resources, on the execs personal salaries and net worth. I would say 110% of thier net worth, per year, until they play ball.

In Alaska, the oil companies are more to blame than the Envirmentalists from getting energy out of Alaska and into your homes!

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?

NIMBY- a scapegoating term. A house is the single largest purchase of a person's life, and one of the cornerstone of American dreams and freedoms. Why should we allow oil companies and energy companies to discard personal freedoms for thier bottom lines? You either have to deal with those that are effected negatively fairly, or no deal.

Shallow bed methane drilling they wanted to do here was shot down by residents, because they contaminate aquifers and make industrial noises that are heard 10-15 miles a way, day and night.

Is it reasonable for someone to have to sacrifice everything they have worked for thier entire life so Ted will have to pay less at the pump?

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?

Couldn't tell you- what happened during those six years when the republicans had every branch of goverment sewed up and were in total control- oh yeah- nothing.

Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution?

Probably not, until there is a true crisis.

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not.

Uh, no, duh. We get most of our foriegn oil on the free market anyway- we may not even be the fourth down the line when buying this oil.

It is the free market dummy (to quote others) and the middle east has to sell to SOMEONE, and that someone will buy, sell and trade on the foriegn market. Unless the ME decides to embargo the world? Which I doubt these days- we use too much oil in this country, period, no amount of domestic production is going to be able to keep up, period.

Exploiting our natural gas reserves would go a long way though.

5. Bonus question: If McCain takes the White House will it improve our chances for energy independence?

Um, zero to none?

I did some research on the AL NG pipeline and found this link and article that claims it is actually in motion http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/09/business/pipeline.php I did several Google searches and found earlier attempts to move it forward when the Republicans were in majority but it was always tied to ANWAR and the bill failed with ANWAR with the help of some Republican Senators.

I was watching C-SPAN this morning on the subject of Polar Bears being placed on the endangered species list and the Bush administration Interior spokesperson indicated the action will in no way affect energy exploration or development in AL. Following his interview was a spokesperson from the tree-huggers environmental lobby who stated if Democrats are elected in majority in congress and take the presidency all drilling and oil exploration will end to protect the polar bears. They will sue in court to close coal fired power plants and every form of CO2 (including auto) using the legislation that protects polar bears. If the environmental lobby uses global warming (ice cap habitat) under court order they can put every airplane and auto in "PARK". Maybe we will have to go to foreign nations and bomb refineries to protect the polar bears, that would be cool now wouldn't it? Maybe close down all ME oil vessels leaving the Gulf so we can stop the "smoke coming out" that harms the bears.

Keep in mind that natural gas and crude oil are two very different things. Simply building the pipeline won't really do anything to change our dependence on crude oil. Natural gas is NOT a replacement for crude oil. It is present to some degree from just about any oil field, and until recently was frequently burnt off at the well head as a waste product. In order to use any large field of it, more LNG refineries would need to be built, and our domestic infrastructure would need to be modified to use it. These are most likely the reasons the oil companies have been slow in developing this field (or any other), not any great conspiracy.

Zack- I have posted the link several times- I will let you look it up yourself if you like- I suggest www.adn.com - and you will find that Exxon has been sitting on one field for 31 years now- they have the permits in place to pump that oil tomorow if they so choose- they don't choose. They choose to use it as a bargaining chip with the state- we could never have imagined 35 years ago selling an oil lease to an oil compnay and them NOT exploiting a major find just to hold it over our heads later.

Hobbes- the infrastructure, except for the pipeline itself and the liquification plant on the slope itself. Otherwise- it ties in Calgary and pumps from there to most of the midwest to plants already using LNG.

There is so much of it, the oil companies want guaruntees that if the price drops because of the huge supply, they get a break on taxes.

Screw that. we are tired of them expecting us to kiss thier butt to take OUR product to market- it is NOT thier product- it is ours- they lease it from us.

There is plenty up here all ready for your guys SUVs and crap. Just need to shake it out from under the rock the Oil companies up here are sitting on.

I think we need to stop wasting fuel on silly things such as racing. What is the purpose of going in a circle a few hundred times turning left(NASCAR), a huge waste of fuel, and not to mention tires that use oil to make. All other forms of racing using internal combustion engines are a waste of resources as well, as this is purely for entertainment, why hasn't the carbon tax made it to this industry yet?

Honestly it's already too late to do anything about drilling in Alaska or offshore now... We should have 10+ years ago but we didn't and now we are paying the price.

Offshore drilling and exploitation wouldn't have happened 10 years ago like you think it would either Sleeper. Oil prices weren't high enough for the oil companies to really go for it- they wanted the "go" for later anyway.

Like I said- they have been sitting on some big ones up here for 31 years already Sleeper.

Perhaps the situation up here is a bit more complex than some long haired hippy enviromentalists have been stopping the giant oil companies from doing thier good deeds to help all us 'Mericans?

Again- how many senators have been going to jail in Alaska for taking bribes from enviromentalists?

Racing has already been jumping to alternative fuels- something where the tech is actually coming from there homegirl.

Methanal, Ethanol and other bio-fuels, synthetic fuels, alternative energy sources - the kila-cycle may very well be the vehicle that has the first applications in real world reduction of "carbon footprint"-

Sleeper- please stick to subjects you may know something about LOL- seriously- if we do come up with an alternative fuels, energies and the performance enhancement we need- it is going to happen at a race track somewhere first.

BTW- one of the big jumps in bio-fuel tech is coming right out of racing Motogp-Repsol. (Spain, BTW)

An algae, grown in tanks, is the new cutting edge fuel proccess that very well might be the magic bullet we been looking for. Maybe not- but it is the racing team fuel engineers that are the main players in on it.

You want to end innovation- take away the engineers main world test facility- you will get your wish!

Ya so Teddy Kennedy stops the wind farm, and Joe Blow stops the one he can see, and the nuke plant, and the new refinery, and the new CO2 sequestering power plant – do you SEE that this gets us absolutely nowhere.




Yes with Dems is control everything that has not already come to a halt or has been delayed for years like Cape Wind will immediately do so. A disaster.

Hey Ted- if it is all the dems fault- what happened during that six years that the republicans had total control of every branch of goverment in the US?

Hey- where is all this fixing of our problems during those six years? What happened to ANWR then? Our senators and legislators said at the repub takeover of both houses of the legislative branch "the stars were aligned"- then they blamed Clinton for no ANWR- said all that would change with a republican president. Then they complained about the courts-got the majority there too.

But guess what? No fixy-fixy!

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?
Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution?

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not.

5. Bonus question: If McCain takes the White House will it improve our chances for energy independence?

In a nutshell, going for more crude is short-sighted. This policy has never worked well, so why does anyone think that it'll work any better? Crude is not a renewable energy resource. It's not nearly as long-lasting as solar, tidal and geothermal. All we use oil for is to make vehicles move and to heat up air. We already know how to do that using solar, tidal and geothermal energy sources. Make electricity with those sources. Use the electricity either directly in electric vehicles and heaters or indirectly by cracking water into H2 and O.

Since 1970 we have learned quite a bit and have developed quit a bit, despite the push-backs from the gas/oil/coal industries. We have no lack of land, oceans or deserts. We don't have enough oil, which is obvious.

The sun and earth are supposed to last for millions or billions of years. I think just one million beats the handful of years that oil is supposed to be around. So who is dreaming, those who want to look for more crude or those who look for the alternatives that are right under our noses and up in the sky?

John McCain is George W. Bush when it comes to this stuff.

The ME can go take a flying leap into the Dark Ages. Makes them feel comfy. Meanwhile we can supply the world with alternative energy technologies and make mountains of money. Got a problem with that?

The problem I see is that we can't supply the entire planet with this technology tomorrow. We don't have the technology in an affordable package, yet. Those that make the same arguement you just did are willing to remain married to Middle East oil until the renewable technology can be rolled out to everyone in this country. Tell me how you propose getting the hundreds of millions of cars on the road today switched to fuel cell engines within a short period of time that will get us out of the ME oil marriage within the next five years. Ten years? Twenty? Not going to happen. Tell me how your camp proposes to get renewable energy powering the small towns accross the nation that does not have the tax revenue to just up and make the switch.

I am all for cheaper energy sources such as the sun and wind. I would love to cut my power bill in half and not spend $70 each time I go to the pump. I am all for renewable energy. I also realize that we can't just up and change over night. If we have the resources today right under our feet to leave the ME scrounging for new customers which will allow us to develop affordable renewable technology, I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't. I am not saying that we should only drill our own oil, I am saying that it would only benefit us to use our own oil until we have the technology available to everyone.

There has been considerable ignorance on display in this forum. I will just reply to one of the ill considered opinions expressed.

The Carter energy initiatives consisted of far more than putting on sweaters and turning down thermostats! Much of it I agreed with and some of it I vehemently opposed. Massive efforts were initiated to improve the end use efficiency of energy use. Important steps were taken to promoted R&D in solar, wind and other alternative energy sources and to incentivize their use. If these efforts had been continued at the same level in subsequent administrations, the US rather than Denmark would be the leader in windmill technology and it would be the US which was approaching 20% of electrical production from wind with an additional major contribution from solar sources. The US would also have had increasingly tighter fleet standards on private automobiles and light trucks and would probably be consuming about 1/2 the fuel now used to run them. With this incentive, it is likely that US auto makers would have responded with efficient vehicles and remained competitive with foreign companies preserving thousands of jobs. In the Reagan and subsequent administration we backed away from these initiatives in favor of a "free market" and a grand bargain with Saudi Arabia to manage the oil market. Look where that has got us!

With the second oil shock, the Carter Administration also created a massive program to encourage the extraction of kerogen from oil shale and the conversion of coal to liquid fuels. These projects may have found favor with some of you but they were environmental disasters then and would be even worse today because of their carbon intensity. I welcomed their demise. A sensible policy might have preserved some active research and demonstration projects.

Thanks for pointing out everyones ignorance, your intellectually superior insight has brought everyone together and has made leaps and bounds in the goal of energy independence. Nice job furthering the debate, Einstein.

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but the issue is the future, not the past. Speculation of what could have happened in the past solves nothing. We have a lot of finger pointing, and a lot of blame laid out to last two lifetimes, but going forward, I think we will all agree that alternative energy sources are in our best interest whether you think so for AGW reasons, or you are like me and are tired of paying nearly $4 for a gallon of gas and thousands a year to heat/cool your home. Unfortunately, the technology is not affordable to most people. I don't know many people that can afford to go out and buy a hybrid or flex fuel vehicle, especially in today's economy. Switching to wind energy to power cities would benefit everyone, but is too expensive to consider getting done in a short amount of time. The topic here is energy independence. I agree that if we had the technology in a package that was affordable enough to export, go for it; until then, we are still sitting around pointing fingers at the Bush administration and the Democratically controlled Congress. The finger pointing does nothing to solve the problem. The way I see it, the first step is to get out from underneath the thumb of foreign oil by utilizing the resources we already have. Since those resources are limited, push for more R&D on alternative technology that we can afford. Our first goal should be to become independent of any foreign government's control over the world's energy. Then we can get new technology online. Only after that is all done, you can play your blame game between the donkeys and elephants. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of babble and we will continue down the same path we have for decades.

Alot of blame going towards Dems on this issue- I will probably need to do a thread spin off on this Scuba- but you are at least reasonable, not a total ditto head here-

Check out this article on exploration "in your back yard" and note that some of the major players in STOPPING developement in certain areas have been REPUBLICANS. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the dem controlled house:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/magazine...ml?ref=business

The Rocky Mountain drilling boom has been aided by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which was once considered a partisan political masterstroke. In providing incentives for energy development, Republicans delivered a profitable gift to an industry that directs most of its campaign contributions to G.O.P. candidates. That gift was sweetened by the Bureau of Land Management, which, under President Bush, has expanded the amount of federal land open to energy development and increased the number of drilling permits.

But the acceleration of energy exploration has split the national Republican Party from local Republicans upset by the downsides of the energy boom. “Republicans created a monster for themselves,” said Rick Ridder, a Colorado-based Democratic consultant. “They put public policy in direct conflict with their base voters.”
In Wyoming’s Upper North Platte Valley, Jeb Steward, a Republican state representative, helped lead the successful 2007 opposition to the B.L.M.’s proposed sale of 13 oil and gas parcels. “We have customs and cultures that have developed over a hundred years based on the utilization of multiple renewable resources — agriculture, tourism, wildlife, fisheries,” Steward said. “When B.L.M. proposed issuing the leases, residents were asking, ‘What does this mean to the lifestyles that we’ve all grown accustomed to?’ ”

the problem is- that oil, gas, mining etc ARE NOT renewable economic sources- whereas the rest ARE renewable, and many of them are part of our food supply- equal in need to oil here folks?

Scuba- you are also talking about RUINING the local economy with drilling and gas exploration in many cases- how can that be conservative and small goverment?

(from the same credited article)

"But can they swing an election? According to Headwaters Economics, a Montana-based research group, the energy sector currently employs only 1.3 percent of the region’s work force. And mining generated just 2.9 percent of all personal income in the five natural-gas-producing Western states in 2006. By contrast, retirement benefits, service jobs and professional industries generated about 55 percent of the region’s income. Many of these sectors have an interest in reducing energy development. After all, retirees, professionals and tourism businesses often come to the region for the open spaces."

It is one thing to ruin someones back yard view- it is another thing to wipe out more than half of a regions income and industry!



Scuba- there is nothing in TedN5s post that is wrong- or even mildly slanted or unfactual. So why the hater-aide?

Oil and gas drilling and marketing is much more of a complex problem than yelling "darn enviromentalists did it"

Again Scuba- lets look at the so-called war between Enviromentalists and Big oil.

Who has the most resources Scuba? Follow the money my mangz!

Again- how many corruption cases in the US have been by enviromentalists buying up lawmakers?

That says volumes my friend- and goes to the core of who is corrupt and lying to YOU.

What you fail to mention is that the price of oil dropped and the Congress dropped funding fot the projects like a hot potato.

The issue today, as then, is that we are decades away from replacing any significant part of out dependence on oil with wind or solar – which will be cheap and clean (some day). Until then it behooves us to get our own oil as we develop the alternatives.

If Projects like Cape Wind are any example the “alternatives” could take even longer with NIMBY and environmental objections. Whereas the infrastructure for using OUR oil is in place and just needs more supply – and that includes refineries.

So Ted, how do you recompense those effected by the windmills- that may have thier livelihood destroyed, thier property values destroyed, and their dreams killed so you can have cheaper gas?

PERFECT CR – you are a poster for why it cannot happen. There will always be a CR who “have thier livelihood destroyed, thier property values destroyed, and their dreams killed” – so we can forget alternative energy and just drill for more oil until its all gone because hell who wants to see a windmill, or a solar array, or a big CO2 sequestering coal fired power plant - right!

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?

For those regions under state control, this is a States' Rights issue; the federal government should have no authority. For those regions under federal control, then it is a federal issue. So, offshore drilling is typically controlled by a state: if the state says "no", then, voila, no drilling. ANWR is federally controlled, thus the federal government could authorize drilling, so far it hasn't.

The ANWR drilling proposal has been argued to death on this board. I'm not terribly interested in rehashing this.

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?

The NIMBY effect is very powerful. People simply don't want oil refineries near where they live. People don't want coal mines near them. Or petroleum/coal-based power plants. Not only will these things lower property values but there are very real health risks. This is not an easily solved problem.

However, if we really want to increase our energy independence, then the first thing we should do is go after the "low hanging fruit". And that is... improved efficiency and increased conservation. This is something we can do right now. It doesn't require building anything new or waiting for new technologies. We simply get more efficient appliances, better insulation, smarter thermostats and so on. Let's tackle this problem first.

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?
Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution?

I expect to see an energy policy; I don't expect to see any real progress here. Nevertheless, the best motivator is sustained high energy prices. If that doesn't get people to cut back profligate consumption and improve their usage efficiency, then nothing will.

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not.

No

5. Bonus question: If McCain takes the White House will it improve our chances for energy independence?

No. But then, our chances wouldn't be improved no matter who takes the White House.

Sure, let's just keep encroaching on our freedom: No racing; no car choices; don't eat what we want; don't set our HVAC thermostats where we want; don't use this, don't do that, don't buy this. Heck, we can pass a new law giving us a total carbon usage per individual per year and tax us on the overage!! Are we the land of the free and the home of the brave, or are we just another fine socialist experiment? I am sure 400,000 of us died in WWII for just this fine, shining moment....

Oh, by the way--it would not surprise me if the fuel used by fans to drive to NFL games on one Sunday uses more fuel than all NASCAR racing does in a year.

I think the problem with this talk about "Energy Independence" is that too many people are wanting to run the 'American Way of Life' on something other than MiddleEast Oil. Any 'alternative' like Alaskan oil or Windmills must be accompanied by energy conservation measures. It has been about 100 years since we discovered an elephant field back in Texas. We won't be able to go back to those days no matter how much money America puts into oil exploration and drilling. And so we need to deal with that reality.

1. Should the US government force states to allow offshore and Alaska drilling to boost domestic supply? Why or Why not?
CR did a good job at addressing that point. Nonetheless, any drilling must be done with strict environmental safeguards. All too often, in places like Nigeria, oil companies have a history of drilling carelessly and profiting from the oil, while leaving the local populations with a depleted environment and no share of the oil profits.

2. Can we afford to wait decades for competitively priced alternative sources. Can theses sources overcome NIMBY and environmentalists attacks?
Nuclear Energy is a cost effective way of providing energy at this moment. This is one energy source that should be seriously considered in reforming America's energy policies. The NIMBYs and environmentalists are going to have to make some compromises unless they want to see their own sons and daughters fight in a resource war in the Middle East.

3. With Democrats in control what can we expect to see as Energy Policy over the next few years and will it help us to become energy independent?
Do we have the slightest chance of reducing our foreign energy independence? What is your solution?
Right now, the Government is trillions of dollars in debt. Maintaining a large military presence in the Middle East indefinately is not a politically feasible option. And the Government does not have the resources to do a ManHatten project for setting up an alternative energy infrastructure. The US will become "Energy Independent" eventually, but it will be the result of free market forces, like the rising gas prices and the credit crunch shaking the banks. And thus, people will be forced to take measures like riding bicycles and wearing sweaters in the winter.

4. Does/should our energy dependence make ensuring the security of the Middle East a US National Priority? Why or Why not.
Besides the fact that the Army has difficulty getting enough recruits, there's another reason why the military won't make us "energy secure." And that has to do with the fact that the military is a giant gas guzzler machine in its own right. The heavy weapons and maintaining a 10,000 mile supply line requires massive amounts of gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. And it goes without saying that it's very hard to run a modern Army on anything other than fossil fuels. At some point, as the oil fields in the Middle East see their production rates decline, the amount of energy going into the military machine won't justify the amount of oil that we're getting out of the Middle East.

So Ted, just to cement your position- you believe in a strong goverment that can sieze land for private enterprise from private land holders?

Scubatim, I understand your way of thinking. It just happens to be wrong.

As the cost of fossil fuels rise, the alternatives look better. Also, the time from idea to production is shortening and has been shortening dramatically over the past 30 years through computer automation and robotics. How the market works now is that a new product comes out, say a CD burner, and within a few years the cost plummets to being a commodity item. Alternative energy tech works the same way.

But I won't lecture you on how the markets work. It's plain as day. Last week I bought an MP3 player with 1GB memory for twenty bucks, on sale at a Walgreen's. It's a pretty sweet little unit.

At one time there was the idea of convergence in the computer industry. So many things were coming together that we in the field knew that computing would take a dramatic and rapid turn, which it has. I see the same thing happening for alternative energy sources development, to wit:

* Expensive and long wars in the ME

* Continually rising costs of fossil fuels

* Proven drawbacks of nuclear energy

* Demand for efficient vehicles on the rise

* Ability to feed grid through personal solar products (solar shingles, solar panels)

* Ability to feed grid through personal wind products (your own windmill

* Solar generation plants coming online (in the Arizona desert)

* Wind generation farms coming online (common knowledge)

* Potentials of tidal and geothermal generation plants coming online (if we're smart)

I could go on, but you get my drift. The world is changing, it's changing rapidly, and on this note it is changing positively. I don't think it's improbable that within the next five years the energy industry will get off fossil fuels in favor of the renewables. I also don't think it's improbable that within the same time frame the internal combustion engine goes the way of the Stanley Steamer.

You see, five years is a longer time today in the marketplace than it was in 1978. More gets done with less once the incentive is there to do it.

Heh, arguing that we should keep on the way we are until nature takes its course (something like that) is ignoring the very dynamics of capitalism that conservatives are supposed to be touting. It's dynamic and getting more so all the time. There is gold in our deserts, on our plains, in our oceans, underneath our feet everywhere and it's not hard to get. Oil, coal and nuclear are hard to get.

That's why our government has been subsidizing those kinds of energy extractions. This is rapidly not making any sense. It hasn't made any sense to me for a long time, but then I'm just a dreamer .

Yep, and in the 1980s I dreamed about the information highway. I dreamed about online education, the ability to work from home anywhere in the world at any time of day or night. Huh, and all that stuff came to pass. Must be psychic.

Alternative energies can work if they're used wisely. If possible, we should use renewable energies to operate things like schools, hospitals, libraries, and if possible the Internet and a railroad system for America.

The problem today is that we hear very little talk about conservation. Is it really wise to have people commute 30 to 50 miles to work everyday? And with a lifestyle so dependent on cars, things like traffic jams and road construction have a negative impact on the quality of life. We really need to start talking about making walkable communities.

Then there is the issue of food production. Having food produced with large machines and then shipped over 1000 miles from the fields to the supermarket is a waste of energy. If we used our land wisely for things like local food production instead of building Walmarts, we could conserve energy by producing food much closer to the population centers. Producing essential items like clothes and shoes within our own cities and reducing our trade deficit can also cut down the amount of fossil fuels used for transportation. If we have a good alternative energy infrastructure, we can run small factories on alternative energy. Heavy Industries would still require fossil fuels.

No I believe in a government that can stop states from over protecting resources such as off shore drilling areas. A government that can short circuit paperwork to get projects completed and is not held hostage by itself or the environmental lefties.

This is not the case today. Kennedy holds up a wind farm miles offshore for 8 YEARS. States restrict drilling, and building of refineries. They will restrict wind farms too – to save birds for example.

Certainly there are cases where you would not allow a 80 foot wind turbine in the middle of a residential neighborhood – but that is the least of our problems.

We need refineries. In the latest Stalinist show the Dems have the oil execs on the hill and are blasting them on the price of gas. But have any in Congress including Republicans helped get a refinery built? We are at over 97% capacity and breakdowns are common – last refinery built about 1970s.

This from 2004 – more true today!

The Great Refinery Shortage
AMERICA NEEDS OIL. YOU'D RATHER HAVE A BEACH CONDO.By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, June 8, 2004, at 5:53 PM ET

There are plenty of reasons gas costs so much, but one of them is that the United States doesn't have enough refineries. The National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association says that the last new refinery built in the United States was Marathan Ashland's Garyville, La., plant—and it was completed in 1976. According to this report, between 1999 and 2002 refining capacity in the United States rose only 3 percent, squeezing up prices since demand grew much faster than that. Who's to blame for the fact that refining supply can't keep up with our thirst for oil? Probably you.

It makes sense to refine oil relatively near where it is produced or—in the case of imported oil—near its port of entry. Refineries are located all over the country. But the largest clusters, as one might expect, are near the water and population centers: the Gulf Coast, coastal California, the Great Lakes, and the Northeast. Unfortunately for refiners, about half of Americans live within 50 miles of the coast. And because of the concentration of people—and wealth—near the continental shelves, land is simply more valuable the closer you get to the water. As a result, shore dwellers have the most to lose from developments that might affect quality of life.

Refiners want to be near the water, but now it's practically impossible for them to find a place to build. Refineries are high on the list of least-wanted industrial sites. This report from the California Energy Commission notes that even though 10 refineries representing 20 percent of the state's refining capacity were closed between 1985 and 1995, "it is unlikely that new refineries will be built in California." Why? Locals are concerned about the environmental impact of refineries, their contribution to smog, their traffic of giant trucks carrying hazardous materials, and the potential for devastating leaks in event of an earthquake.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102031/

I don't think I have said that TedN5 is wrong. I support using alternative energy sources for everything we can. My point is that our nation will not be able to get away from oil in the next five years. There is no way that I can imagine that we will get every driving citizen out of a combustion engine in five years. I don't even see it happening in the next ten years. I also don't know if we can get our electricity that powers our homes switch entirely to renewable sources in the next ten years. My point in the matter is that those that oppose drilling our own oil and burning coal are willing to remain married to the ME until the technology will allow us to not use that energy source. I don't see it as a R vs. D, or blame environmentalists. The point is that we can start getting our own oil today, and get out of the ME sooner than waiting for everyone to get rid of their combustion engines.


I don't see any way that the new cars that run only on electricity is going to be affordable for the average family in the next five years. People can't afford to buy new cars today, and the technology is over 100 years old. I am sorry I don't share your optimism, but tell me how the technology is going to be affordable to a family of 4 with a household income of $60,000? It just isn't feasible or responsible to think that we can get away from oil in that short amount of time. With that, we have to get out of the ME ASAP, and if that means we have to drill our own oil, then so be it. Waiting another five years will only compound the problem.

the way we can get rid dependency on oil from forgeign countries who want to kill us is, at least in the short and medium terms, (1)move to build coal liquefaction plants and start liquefying coal. america has been referred to as the saudi arabia of coal. 2 tonnes of coal will yeild 1 tonne of oil (2)We need to start drilling offshore. There is oil out in the gulf of mexico, we just don't really drill for it. (3)Build nuclear power plants. I mean come on even the FRENCH are doing this. it is relativly clean, however, the one big down side, of course, is the waste.

we DO need to move away from fossil fuels. wind power is a decent option, and great strides have been made in the field of solar in the last 15 - 20 years. in the long term we need renewable energy, but not because of global warming (which I contend that while we may not HELP matters we didn't cause. it's a natural process of the earth/solar system. but that's a topic for another debate) but because we will constantly need energy.

As long as we rely on opec countries for oil prices on everything will go up. the airline industry was not built for 130$ barrel of oil. the price of food will go up with the price of crude as it becomes more expensive to transport the food. the price of all commodities will rise.

So- Ted, try to stay on topic here- if someone is living there already- has made a place thier home, is it okay to seize this land for private use, for a company to make profit?

So when did you become such an anti-private property communist Ted? I mean, that is what communist countries do Ted- you know, "for the good of the state".

Oil companies are corrupt Ted, and sit on large deposits of oil and gas, right now, in this country, that would produce tomorow if the oil companies would start pumping.

How do you propose to fix that Ted? Other than siezing private property all gestapo like for 'the fatherland"?

I never said that and we don’t need to do that. DUH no one lives 50 miles off shore. There are vast spaces for wind farms. Including the shore. Look up Cape Wind and tell me what chance we have after you read the history of what Ted Kennedy did to that project.



Again the usual CR unsourced babbling – care to post some sources here sir? Or as usual just drop it?

As usual- you aren't keeping up Ted- I won't do your research for you, I have posted those links before- at least three times at last count.

Whew- pot, meet Kettle. You are literally the worst 'cut and run" poster on this board, and when nailed in an issue- run away, big time. On more than one post I have posted the 31 years that the oil companies have sat on oil fields in our state.

Though, I should point out that you have probably contributed to alot of belly laughs with that post, considering the source.

Do try to keep up there dude.

When you go and take something from someone- say, thier nieghborhood, or thier livelihood (in the case of mining in this state- again, have posted the links- mining vs fishing is the big one here now) - you have taken something from them.

It is very easy to call someone else a "NIMBY" when they stand to lose everything they have worked thier whole lives for.

the Exxon Valdez destroyed a whole ecosystem, and fishing in the prince william sound has never recovered, no matter what you may have heard. Thousand lost thier entire livelihood over that one, including several of my friends.

I am not against oil exploration or drilling, but I also know it is more than simple "oh, it is those darn enviromentalists"- it is the oil companies politics as well, or rather, in my state, they are the entire reason in a couple oil fields.

scubatim, you are right about conventional cars becoming less affordable for the middle class. However, this is a direct result of bad energy policy, where a misguided war in the ME is sucking down our wealth.

But your assumption that people are simply waiting for things to happen is wrong. The true capitalists in this country, and actually across the world, are working hard each and every day to make things happen in what has to become our future. Nobody can depend on fossil fuels. That is the long and short of it.

This isn't optimism but realism. Corporations are paying too much for energy, and they learned a harsh lesson during the California energy crisis -- remember that? The average consumer is learning the same lesson right now. Most of us react to pain, not to vision as is obviously true about human beings.

The only reason the family of four living off of 60k a year drives a used internal combustion car is that only internal combustion cars are available at this time. This should be an obvious thing. Nope, they won't buy the electric cars coming online, nor could they have afforded the hot new CD burner a few years back. These people are not the leading edge of new markets. They do have to wait for goods to become commodities before they can buy, and it's a wise purchasing decision.

Making an affordable electric car is a major thrust, along with the hybrids that are taking off. Generating cheap electricity that doesn't screw up the land, air and water is another big push. Everyone wants to save money and just about everyone wants to get off of oil.

That is, unless some people have vested interests in staying on oil. I think we now know who those people are.

skeeteres, I'm in agreement that communities should be walk-abouts rather than suburbs, and that driving 50 miles to and from work is getting more unrealistic and illogical with the power of telecommuting and of virtual offices (you link up from a building close to home, not the head office) becoming realities. This goes along with my argument that the world is changing and very quickly, and for the positive.

Here's yet one more plug for the Rocky Mountain Institute, led by Amory Lovins, the true visionary about our future and what it has to become. He is one of many, and if anyone can be called a dreamer on this stuff, he's The One.

In the 1970s we were hated with passion. Now it makes sense -- saves money.

That argument is a continuation of Monday morning quarterbacking. That doesn't change the fact that America still needs oil. We have oil, the ability to collect our oil, almost immediately. If we were to be able to gather that oil and provide our country with the energy we need without the marriage to the Middle East, why not do it?


I have not argued against your dependency of fossil fuels point. I have argued that it will not be affordable to many Americans for an extended period of time. While we are working towards getting the technology affordable to everyone, we need to be independent of the Middle East. That is the long and short of it.


So while we wait, as you point out, you don't think we should access the oil in our own country? Why continue the bondage that is our marriage to the Middle East any longer than necessary?


And until we do, we are still mired down with the conflicts, and the oppression of OPEC. Nice. Why not get out of there while we are developing the technology that you are talking about?


Come on, you and I have been having a great debate without making it political. You didn't come out and say it, but making it a R v. D issue muddles an intelligent debate. I have also found that the oil companies are learning that they have a vested interest in renewable energy since they have the ability to deliver the energy.

Scuba- it is not that America is dependent on ME oil supply- it is that the global market is dependent on ME oil supply, and we are as much of the victim of a global oil market as anyone else.

http://www.fool.com/

the above is a great resource that steps out of the political and rhetorical part of this debate and jumps in the real world of investment, money and the economy.

The ME will not be the big power player in oil soon, - russia and central america will-

http://www.fool.com/investing/internationa...607_linkdefault

here lies the crux of the matter:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008...607_linkdefault



Perhaps most astoundingly, late last year Russia quietly passed Saudi Arabia to become the world's biggest oil producer. After Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently agreed, face to face, to tone down their increasingly inflammatory rhetoric and concentrate instead on business, Russia's growing oil output and the U.S.'s corresponding decline seem increasingly meaningful, if not ominous.


Bottom line is- Scuba- we have already passed into peak oil for the middle class reality. Fuel prices won't go down much, if at all, again. Crude prices have soared up over 80% since last year, while gas prices have went up only 25%, and we will see 10$ a gallon gas sooner than later- and all the oil fields in the world, pumping tomorow- is not going to change that anymore, short of a massive population reduction and end of the emerging economies of the "second world".

Ted's assertation that somehow, north slope oil from alaska is going to help the lower 48 is a pipe dream, big time. Our own recent think tanks have shown that, though ANWR will be VERY good for alaskans= it will do nothing for the "lower 48". the gazzillions of barrels of oil that Ted things is there, even on our best day, won't be coming out of the ground like that.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008...607_linkdefault


The difficulty, of course, is that, as I've written recently, with many big fields tiring across the world, it's questionable whether OPEC as a whole could raise its production even if it wanted to. Oh, sure, the cartel's kingpin, Saudi Arabia -- the place where the president issued his request -- has closed its spigot slightly and likely could add to its output. Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did so.

Beyond that, Iraq has the potential to eventually ramp up the approximately 2.0 million barrels a day it's currently pumping, although we all know very well why that nation is producing at relatively low levels. But of the other big OPEC producers -- including Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, and Venezuela -- none is producing at a rate comparable to its highest past level, and most have seen their daily output slip.

For similar reasons, I'll be interested to observe the production rates of the international integrated companies when they report their December-ended quarters in the coming weeks. I won't be astounded if, despite crude prices in the $90s for much of the quarter, the companies' upstream output was down, if only slightly.

If you're noting a theme here, you're probably right: As the president noted from Saudi Arabia, the growing demand for oil from places like China and India is sopping up larger amounts of global supply and affecting prices -- all at a time when, except for a few places like Russia and Kazakhstan, worldwide production may be close to topping out.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102031/
I read this entire article about the Great Refinery Shortage. I think we seriously have to listen to the NIMBYs on this one. It seems as if everyone wants economic growth, but want the side effects in someone elses backyard. One of the my points about building walkable communities was to help America reduce its consumption of fossil fuels. But even if Americans did more to make their communities walkable, it won't to be enough.

One of the great problems is that for the past century, Americans have been living a life filled with consumer luxuries at great expense for the planet. And with oil going past $130/barrel, we have to start thinking about the limitations of the planet's resources as far as supporting our lifestyle is concerned.

In the article about the Great Refinery, there was one fishing village where some lobster hunters persuaded the citizens to vote against the construction of an oil refinery. The author of the article was angry because the citizens voted against something that would supposedly bring in millions of taxes for the city and thousands of industrial jobs. One of the things about fishing is that the fishing profession has thousands of years of experience and knows which practices are sustainable. If you build an oil refinery on the other hand and OPEC for some reason decides to cut its oil exports dramatically, the oil refinery just becomes a big contaminated metal wasteland that nobody will want to live near for generations.

Yes NIMBY is a BIG issue here. And regardless of the price of oil we need more refineries. We are at 97% of capacity and there are over 13 boutique” formulations of gas (auto) to blend for different states/regions. Bringing in refined oil is expensive and is one factor driving up the price right now

The environmental crowd is powerful in the Dem party and anyone who believes Obama is going to come in and “solve” our energy problems is dreaming. In fact even McCain has little chance to do squat. The environmentalists love the price increase – and in some ways it is good. We needed the wake up call – let’s just hope someone answers it.

And this............

"Demand for crude oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) continues to rocket ahead, especially in dynamic economies that are continuing to grow even in the face of the slowing U.S. economy. Last month we saw the following developments in the energy sector:
• China 's consumption of crude oil and refined oil products both hit record highs in the first quarter of the year according to statistics released by the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association. China 's consumption of oil products - composed of gasoline, diesel and kerosene - rose by 16.5 percent year on year in the first three months. Crude oil consumption rose by eight percent. (Xinhua)

• Data released recently by Chinese customs authorities show a surge in the emerging giant's oil imports in March. On a year-over-year basis, China 's crude oil imports rose 25 percent in March. Although there have been reports of diesel fuel shortages in China, the gains in China's oil imports may owe to inventory accumulation in anticipation of the Olympics rather than a dramatic acceleration in its oil consumption. ( Dallas Federal Reserve)
• According to well known academic energy economists in China , the 14 largest oil fields in the world, which together account for a fifth of global output, are all showing declining production. These old fields, where the cost of producing each extra barrel of oil is just a few dollars, are having to be replaced by new more expensive fields. (MSN Money)

• With China 's crude demand expanding at 11 per cent a year the country will soon replace the US as the world's biggest oil importer. The growth of India 's oil demand isn't far behind. These two nations account for a third of humanity. And as economic development continues, the energy needs of their factories - along with those in Brazil , Mexico and other populous emerging markets – will escalate. As these countries get richer the number of cars in the world, now around 625 million, is set to double in less than 20 years. The impact of that on global oil demand will be immense - around 70 per cent of current crude output is used to fuel autos. (Telegraph) "

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4753.html


And STILL the Congress will not allow us to drill for our own damn OIL.

Ted, I think you are underestimating the NIMBY issue. This is one NIMBY issue that cuts across both parties.

Second off, there is the issue of profitability. Higher gas prices are good for the oil businesses in the short run, but if oil prices go up too high, along with gas prices, that means that many motorists are forced to give up their cars. If we start drilling for oil up in ANWAR or build more oil refineries, it will give the oil companies permission to trash the environment in America so that people who have money can continue driving their cars.

A very bleak future indeed. One might think, hey, why do we need cars in the first place? Can we do without them? Are we so addicted to automobiles that we can't imagine ever living without them?

The automobile is only what, around a hundred years old? Whatever did people do for the thousands of years (being conservative here) before the automobile?

Well, we can have our cake and eat it too. Alternative energy -- get progressive. All that oil does is burn and release more ancient carbon sink foul garbage into our environment.

Seems that is leaving a bad taste (literally) in many people's mouths. People are dreaming about alternative energy, clean cars that run off electricity, and clean ways of making electricity. Plug in, tune out and turn on.

Zoom zoom.

The point is getting from here to there. How we do this is the juncture of debate. Some want no change in policy. Others require it. It is becoming like the labor struggles of the 1930s, whose side are you on Buddy, whose side are you on?

Let's face it, Republicans want the status quo. However, the base of Republicans are also in business. Every business other than the oil/gas/coal companies want a better way of doing this because . . .

it costs too much money the way we are doing it now.

And of course there is the cost of the wars, the cost of the dependency on strange foreign nationals of questionable character and of backward beliefs that lead to all sorts of troubles. Some people want to drill more for oil that we don't have. Meanwhile, energy is all around us in abundance. All we need to do is harvist it, and we have the technologies to do this.

Why aren't we? We are. It's just a matter of time and dime. Motivation. Yep, it's almost thrilling how this is all working out.

That’s why we have environmental laws. Are you saying that we allow oil drilling and refineries to “trash” the environment? If they do whose fault is that?

You are right though, part of the GW nonsense and the limitation on drilling and refining is a political movement by people who want to change the way we all live. I am not saying that conservation and a clean environment are bad – but wholesale rapid change is not possible.

The bottom line is that we don’t have the infrastructure (like mass transit) to get around without cars. Try getting to work from one suburb to another without a car. Or even into the cities. And yes we could build it – but let’s not put the cart before the horse.



Its not just “policy” – Bush has put billions into “alternative energ