Drilling for oil in Alaska is only going to go to the highest bidder and if there is another accident like Valdez.. Who suffers???? Not the purchasers of the oil. It will be our land. Utah is fighting bringing in Italy nuclear waste. The rest of the nation maynot mind them shipping it here. But if something happens like someone decides to blow it up who will it effect.? Not Italy!!

thanks for your comments.

You are partially correct. We can use the resources of the desert. We would need better technology in order to ship the energy to distant places. Currently we have problems storing and transferring energy. Storing the energy of hydro-electric dams is just one example. We use everything that we make. If demand decreases, we have decrease the amount of energy generated.

thanks for your comments.

I am certainly no energy scholar or expert, but I have read that we could supply vast amounts of solar energy by placing solar panels in the Mojave desert. If this is true why don’t we. I realize how naive that statement sounds, by the way.

As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Model T let’s look at the inventions that have come along. 100 years ago the model T really wasn’t a practical car. There really were many roads. The roads that we had really weren’t that good. Axils were a huge problem. They broke frequently. The suspension was a joke. Radiators were awful. There was no power steering and no turn signals. Window shield wipers were terrible. There was no safety devices.

Now, just look at air bags. 35 years ago, many people were telling us that they were impossible. There is no way to make them work without killing the passenger. Then with continued infusion of money the air bag was perfected.

Hydrogen cars and electric cars will be perfected but they need to have that infusion of money. As long as we continue to cling to a finite resource the technology needed for hydrogen cars and electric cars will not be developed. We have already seen the development of non-toxic batteries for some of the electric cars.

I appreciate you continuing to try to be nice. I don’t think that any discussion needs to get nasty.

I’m amazed that you would want to hang on to something that we know is going to run out. (I agree that we don’t know when they will run out.) We know that burning fossil fuels hasn’t been good for the environment or our lungs. Forget the global warming argument for a minute. Just remember the breathing in Houston, LA or NY in the summer. Studies have shown the rate of childhood asthma increases with smog level so the harm is clear. Over 5 million children suffer from this disease costing over $10 billion in 1994.

Finally, if we don’t believe in American ingenuity then I think that you are right. we need to stick with fossil fuels until they run out and hope for the best. On the other hand, I look at air bags, crumple zones, roll bars and seat belts and see that we can overcome problems that seems impossible to some just a few short years ago.

http://www.energyrefuge.com/archives/where_oil_comes_from.htm

And why on earth would we NEED to be completely energy independent in the first place? What’s so bad about buying oil from Canada? It’s called the principle of comparative advantage… we produce what we are most efficient at producing… and use our profits to buy what other countries are most efficient at making… there is no rational reason why we should abandon the global market in this ONE commodity. Can you enlighten me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage (I’m sure YOU know this… but for the benefit of your readers)

Finally, why should WE pay for all this change when the rest of the world is going to keep on using the same, carbon-based systems… and completely outpace us… why should we have to scale back when nobody else will? Did you see how many COAL power-plants China is on track to build??? Eight-Hundred-And-Fifty! do you think solar panels are going to save the world when China is adding this many COAL plants into the mix? Where’s the outrage over China’s environmentally damaging ways??? I’d love to hear some of that on this blog.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

Look, every liberal/conversationalist “solution” to the energy problem has so-far proven to be at best, equally damaging

> ethanol–which takes more energy to produce than we get from it,
> fluorescent light-bulbs that release argon gas into the atmosphere,
> hybrids that start with a 100K carbon footprint and require dangerous batteries which can’t be disposed safely

and at worst, unproven and unworkable

> hydrogen-based autos,
> Ocean currents,
> Windmills that take 20 acres to provide a fraction of the power of coal or nuclear plants)…
> the list goes on and on…

Look, Carbon Dioxide is a GOOD THING… we need it to survive… it’s not killing us… it’s making our lives better. its just a fact.

You are right. I didn’t even touch the fantasy of “clean coal” or shale or all of the other non-renewable fossil fuels.

thanks for your comments.

I’m sorry you don’t like the analogy but I think that it fits pretty well. I think that it is clear that burning fossil fuels isn’t good for the environment like heroin isn’t good for your body. With the number of cases of childhood asthma dramatically increasing every year, I would say that smog and air pollution are killing our bodies. Yep, I like the analogy.

None of the estimates for the amount of oil available or even hopefully available in ANWR or off our coastlines will significantly decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Even the most optimist estimates have us continuing our habit and relying on the Middle East to supply it.

Finally, the American worker needs a better paying job. That what is needed. Alternative energy should help supply millions of good paying jobs.

Thanks for your comments.

secondly, comparing energy usage to heroin usage is a HORRIBLE analogy… you and I both know that. If we all switched 100% of our energy usage to solar panels tomorrow, would you say we have a heroin-like addiction to the Sun??? Of course not. Environmentalist addiction to clean energy is really more like a heroin addict… they don’t need it but they keep shooting up for that euphoric feeling “saving the planet” gives them. Find a better analogy.

Thirdly, you on the one hand… say we should cut our energy usage… but then criticize oil companies for not drilling using their leases. That’s a pretty bad argument. Speaking of Anwar… There is a REASON we want to drill there…. it’s called KNOWN RESERVES. These leases are not X million guaranteed barrels of oil… they are just leases on land that probably don’t have anywhere NEAR to the KNOWN reserves of Anwar.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121478199392114387.html

The best way to help the typical “american worker” is to find the energy source that is the most available, abundant, and cheapest so that he or she can be as competitive as possible in the global marketplace. Swithcing our country over to another energy source just makes us less competitive on the global market — which will ultimately harm the typical american worker.

I actually think ocean-current technology is something worth exploring… but we definitely need something in the interem… we can’t peg all our hopes on theoretical solutions that have not been proven… we need to live in the present…. and that present involves every family owning 2+ automobiles…