Comments on: Energy questions for Republicans and Democrats

By: Dan Windler

Dan Windler — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:51:51 +0000

Chip- Re full bandwidth solar- the PV panels on the Mars rover
use 3 different wave lengths and are 30% effecient. The tecnology
is out there, it's just very expensive.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:59:12 +0000

Lets be realistic. Every discussion of energy policy needs to include the economic and environmental consequences. Alternative energy is going to take time to develop. Until that day comes, we still have to survive. The question is, do we send our dollars and jobs to other countries; or do we produce more of our energy domestically?

I would love to see a steel mill that can run on 100% solar. We aren't there yet. Like it or not, oil and other fossil fuels are going to be around for foreseeable future. To get off of fossil fuels; we will need a mix of alternative energy sources. The in no single answer. And until we can develop the technologies , the infrastructures, and get them down to reasonable costs; we will still be using fossil fuels. This can be mitigated by increased conservation; but realistically, we are going to be using traditional energy sources for quite awhile.

The most crucial thing we need today is a plan – a road map to clean energy independence. And that requires leadership. Leadership to map a course from dependence on fossil fuels to energy independence using non-polluting sources. However, what we get is partisan posturing and industry interference. Until we elect people that care more about our future than their own, we screwed. Most politicians listen to the fat-cat lobbyist instead of the people. We need a Manhattan or Apollo type project with a realistic timetable and clear goals. I am afraid I don't see anyone in either party that can do this. They will continue hold committee hearings, give speeches, and make promises, but do nothing. Eventually, some hodge-podge, be-all, please-all, loaded with pork plan will evolve that is destined for delays, cost-overruns, and ultimately – failure. This is all our "leaders" are capable of these days. This is one reason why we have both a president and a Congress with the lowest approval ratings in history. I don't agree with everything that Mr. Pickens says, and I don't think he has the complete answer; but at least he has a plan, and is doing something.

By: John D

John D — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:33:11 +0000

Any oil found off our shores and beaches would go into the world market, you think all the oil out of Alaska comes directly to us? We exchange the sunny vista off Miami or any other beach for oil rigs and potential spills to feed a voracious world market while killing our tourist industry, our environment and who knows what else. How does this alleviate our transportation problem? Do we put the people in the tourist industry out of work so their portion is available for the rest of us? It’s our infrastructure that needs planning something that hasn’t been done since the 60’s. Mass Transit, charging stations, park and ride areas, bike ways, etc all need to be looked at for getting from point A to point B without or very little oil.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:53:42 +0000

Creating centralized power plants is extremely inefficient. Converting DC current to AC and piping it long distances only to have our appliances convert it back down to a usable charge is very dumb. The only benefit is that a greedy individual gets to charge everyone for the power. Why don't we invest money in the form of incentives so that each building supplies all or a portion of it's power? This model is already working in Germany and Denmark (not very sunny places). DC appliances exist and this type of current comes straight from the solar panel. It is far more efficient, but there's the old problem of the greedy guy who wants to charge you for it. How about we create manufacturing jobs for devices that make the energy and create an economy around charging for the devices and their maintenance rather than the energy itself? Ask the greedy guys in charge WHY!

By: kayaker35

kayaker35 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:33:20 +0000

3 things:
1: drilling today, it is said, will not decrease fuel costs (heating or other) for 10 years if we start drilling today.

2: Drilling rig construction has a current global backlog of at least 5 years so if we get a rig off the coast in 5 years, we won't ease the gas prices for 15 years...

3. wind has proven itself, Norway has an Island that is totally wind powered (Manhattan sized?) and produces excess power to be sold to the mainland. We can certainly employ laid-off auto workers to begin manufacturing windmills and begin producing electricity next year (offshore or not) cheaper electricity will mean less homes heated by fuel-oil and natural gas etc. Sounds like win-win-win.....

By: KWright

KWright — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:05:44 +0000

I believe that an agreement to permit some offshore drilling will produce some downward pressure on oil futures, which will lower prices today and in the medium term. The long term is another matter – clearly demand is going to continue to climb and there will be little ability to increase supply enough, leading to escalating prices. So T.Boone is correct on that point.

By: Kev

Kev — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:05:37 +0000

The reality is this:
Our current infrastructure is all based on liquid fuel, particularly oil based fuels (primarily transportation).

Any change from this existing structure will take years, literally! The oil companies are some of the most fiscally responsible organizations in the world. So it is no surprize that the esxisting oil leases are not being exploited.

The existing oil lease property is worthless. If it actually had value, the oil companies would be exploiting it. It has no value because the costs can not be justified. Obviously the fiscally irresponsible congress cant understand this idea! Thus, it is an obvious realization that the additional offshore areas need to be opened because this will give more opportunity for oil companies to recoup their costs as opposed to being fiscally irresponsible (oil companies would go bankrupt if they are fiscally irresponsible and no one would be able to drive!).

Ok, that is 1 part of the solution. The other part is to do what Pickens suggests. The government needs to put an additional tax or tarriff on imported petroleum (not domestic supply!) to incentivize the use of domestic energy systems such as coal, natural gas, domestic oil, nuclear, solar, geothermal etc. This tax will be multiplied many times over as the u.s. keeps money in the u.s. instead of sending this wealth overseas. In addition, the republicans and dumbocrats need to agree on providing some tax benefits or incentives to get a new infrastructure established that we can use to help meet environmental goals & improved efficiency goals. This is a basic energy plan.

By: Andrew in Dallas

Andrew in Dallas — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:45:22 +0000

The problem is our addiction to fossil fuels. The $600 billion we spend annually on imported oil is a symptom of that addiction. Domestic drilling is akin to a heroine addict looking for a new dealer instead of working on kicking the habit. Pickens is therefore absolutely correct when he says we can't drill our way out of this problem.

That said, nuclear power is probably a bigger part of the long term solution than either wind (not practical in most of the country) or natural gas (still a fossil fuel). It's kind of ironic that the environmental movement put the the safest and cleanest source of power available to us on ice for the better part of three decades. Oops!

By: Bruce Carlton

Bruce Carlton — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:41:23 +0000

Before falling in love with Pickens you need to tak a look at what he is doing with water from the Ogallala aquifer. He wants to basically pump it dry in the process of supplying water to a big city. When he says he doesn't need any more money that may be true, but he certainly wants more and is willing to destroy the aquifer in order to further line his pockets.

By: Heinz Gf. Matuschka

Heinz Gf. Matuschka — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:09:40 +0000

The worst problem at this time with electric cars is that energy storage is not very efficient yet.
The new style of lithium-ion batteries which is still in the research stage, which will allow complete recharge in five minutes should change that in the near future.
However,after enough of these cars will have been sold, we will find that we are unable to produce sufficient electricity. Electricity supply even now is often a problem.
Plans for more electricity generation should be started immediately. If that is neglected now we'll simply swap one problem for another.
Unfortunately we only usually notice problems when they hit us broadside. Anticipating these is not exactly our strong suit.