SciTechBlog   « Back to Blog Main
October 13, 2008

Book tracks four decades of energy errors

Posted: 12:42 PM ET

My part of the country is recovering from re-living the gas lines of the 1970s.

Thanks to Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, refinery shutdowns brought gas lines back to much of the Southeast U.S. Here in the Atlanta area, most stations were shut down for the past few weeks, and when one got a rare delivery, the tanker truck driver attracted petroleum paparazzis - drivers who follow a delivery truck to its destination. Long story short: Although the gas crisis has eased, it's changed people's behavior, and really gotten inside everyone's head.

Along comes a book that recounts four decades of good intentions and failures in US energy policy. A Declaration of Energy Independence, by former Energy Department official Jay Hakes, is in equal parts a prescription for U.S. energy self-sufficiency, and a pageant of recounting the errors of the past seven Presidential administrations. The book does a good job of staying readable, with Hakes navigating between the dense economics and policy-wonk detail that are a part of our ongoing energy drama. He points out the sins of Republicans and Democrats alike, with each President back to Richard Nixon promising energy independence and then dropping the ball.

Hakes is most charitable to Jimmy Carter, whose earnest and early embrace of conservation and alternative energy was lost in the Reagan Revolution. (Note that Hakes's day job is running the Carter Presidential Library and Museum in Atlanta). But he also gives a nod to Ronald Reagan, whose early policies won a short-lived drop in US oil imports. The Reagan Era also saw abrupt reversals in alternative and conservation programs spawned under Nixon, Ford, and Carter.

The author also connects the indisputable dots between oil imports and U.S. foreign policy adventures, from support for the Shah of Iran, the Iranian revolution and hostage-taking that helped bring down Carter, and the subsequent support of Saddam Hussein. Back when Iraq and Iran were at war, we were for Saddam before we were against him. Most telling and prophetic is a quote from President Eisenhower, who said half a century ago that "should a crisis arise (in) Mid East oil, we would have to use force."

The back half of the book focuses not on the sins of the past but on the path to the future. Both liberals and conservatives need to get over their reflexive impulses, says Hakes: The left has to stop demonizing corporations that hold many of the keys to solutions, and recognize that the free market just might have a role in fixing this; the right has to stop viewing any effort to challenge fossil fuels as a sinister conspiracy from Al Gore's Secret Mountain Laboratory, and keep an open mind to energy taxes as another path to solution.

Hakes calls for making energy conservation a "patriotic duty" (I think I recall that from many past good intentions), increasing energy storage capacity, and starting over on how we deal with our cars.

–Peter Dykstra, Executive Producer CNN Science, Tech & Weather

Filed under: Energy • Fuel


Share this on:
Franko   October 13th, 2008 1:58 pm ET

"conservation a “patriotic duty”"
Mindless Zombies, are Patriots ?
Substituted for understanding, reasioning, thinking.


Andrew Turner   October 13th, 2008 2:30 pm ET

Might want to consider the design of the "How Freedom.." tagline on the front. Looks like an an afterthought, and rather unprofessional.


S Callahan   October 13th, 2008 2:57 pm ET

Excellent article at this point in the Presidental run...puts the pressure on both of them ....


Franko   October 13th, 2008 3:21 pm ET

People used 2X6 instead of 2X4 lumber, to improve insulation.
Then figured ut, lumber conduction is still a large loss.
Better to add a layerof insulation, not just inbetween the studs


Ray G.   October 13th, 2008 4:08 pm ET

It will be interesting to see what happens if gas prices continue to drop below $3.00 per gallon.

Will we remain committed to decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, or will we forget about it again until the next energy crunch?


Franko   October 13th, 2008 6:56 pm ET

A starved rat, remembers, saves and hordes.
Nutty squirrel plans for the winter.
Nutty faithful Patriotic Zombies,
Just keep the profits percolating to the top.


Phil   October 13th, 2008 11:33 pm ET

Right now we need a real energy policy that does not include "drill drill drill".

We need to view energy not as a commodity that we can get any where like milk and eggs, but as a strategic commodity. Oil use is here for a long time the way our infrastructure is setup. We need to change infrastructure so we are not dependent on oil, this is not an easy task. But is we start sooner, the path will be easier. Then as the supply of oil runs out, or the price too high; we can move on to other energy sources.


Kevin   October 14th, 2008 2:59 am ET

I KNEW Al Gore had a secret mountain laboratory!


Fran Jackson   October 14th, 2008 5:49 am ET

Open Letter To: Presidential Candidates and others 10/12/08

From: : Francis W. Jackson – BSME 1952 (Northeastern Univ.), MME 1957 (U of Del.), 50+ years experience (36 with GE), PE in PA&formally Ohio; 110 Summit Ave Hatboro, PA 19040; Tel 215 672 3805; frnjks@juno.com; If anyone interested in specifics, just ask.

As both Obama and McCain support “Cap and Trade” I’ve been looking at assessments by, EPA&NAM/ACCF and my own “attack oil&Kwhrs&corn Ethanol “folly”&other demands with a vengeance” and my information is as follows:

As EPA projects to 2025&NAM/ACCF projects to 2030 and limited data presented after 2030, I settled at 2025 as the place to compare; albeit, it gets far more painful to achieve 2050 caps by 2050. Some variations in projections can be explained by differing assumptions, i.e., different assumptions compute different answers. Here are some significant assumptions I have identified for year 2025 and the 2025 results I computed:

Assumptions------- FWJ 2025 Predictions($s 2008)---
2025 Kwhr 2025 2025------–
Nuke Demand Carbon MMT $Trillion $Trillion oil $/MT
Mwhr vs 2025 Tax CO2 Energy foreign mbd reduced
Capacity projection $/MT retail oil cost demand
EPA +48 % -13 % 50 5402 1.93 0.62 23.0 149

NAM/ACCF
Low cost +25 % -9 % 95 5402 2.03 0.62 23.0 218
High cost +10 % -13 % 110 5265 2.13 0.62 23.0 269

“Vengeance” +100 % -50 % N/A 2368 0.85 0.10 13.1 -193

2025 MMT target 4389
2025 Reference (business as usual) 6800 1.72

EPA assumes a 48 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 13 % from projected; I calc 5402 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 1.93 $Trillion. Very expensive and short of 4389 MMT target that has to be made up with purchased (51 $B) off-sets of 1013 MMTons. Big problem not addressed enough here is oil; it‘s demand remains high therefore considerable MMTs from oil continues; and at continued high price per barrel (big cost item). Also some of the MMT reductions assumed require sequestering CO2, an expensive technology still in it’s infancy, i.e., considerable cost and risk.

NAM/ACCF Low Cost assumes a 25 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 9 %; I calc 5402 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 2.03 $Trillion. Again very expensive and short of CO2 target and has to be made up with purchased (96 $B) off-sets; and comparable to EPA CO2 results. And again, big problem for both MMT&cost is oil.

NAM/ACCF High Cost assumes a 10 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 13 %; I calc 5265 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 2.13 $Trillion. Again, very expensive and short of CO2 target. And again big problem for both MMT&cost is oil with the added cost of less Nuclear capacity, the lowest cost least CO2 available method to generate electricity 24/7; and MMT that has to be made up at more expensive and/or higher MMT ways.

“With a vengeance”, aggressively attack oil&Kwhrs&corn Ethanol “folly”&other demand, I assume a 100 % increase in Nuclear generation coupled with efficiency improvements that reduce Kwhr demand 50 % from projected; I calc 2368 MMTons CO2 in 2025 and US energy cost of 0.85 $Trillion. MMT target met with margin, i.e., no off-sets required, and at a $Trillion per year saved (and half a $T/year less for foreign oil) in 2025; and at least a $Trillion per year (and half $Trillion for foreign oil) saved each year thereafter. I say at least because as the “screw” is tightened to get to 2050 MMT target, the cost will increase substantially for “cap & trade”. While I indicate in the table carbon Tax not applicable (N/A) there is an investment in efficiency at (my estimate) 200 (half for oil and half for all other energy demands ) $Billion per year; however as cost drops from projected (business as usual – NAM/ACCF) cost of 1.72 $Trillion to 0.85 $T (0.85$T cost includes 0.2 $T investment and total energy expenditure still reduced 0.87 $T) while reducing MMT from projected (business as usual – NAM/ACCF) of 6800 MMT to 2368 MMT (MMT reduced 4432 ), or get paid 193 $s for each 2025 MetricTon (MT) reduced; net cost delta per MT of “vengeance” from EPA’s 149 $ equals 342 (149+193) $s less/MT reduced; and for NAM/ACCF’s High of 269 $s equals 462 $s less/MT reduced! And my cumulative predictions (2008-2025) of “vengeance” as compared to EPA projections is: 39,027 less MMTCO2, 10.85 $T less energy expenditure and 6.2 $T less for foreign oil; substantial economic “burden” reduction!

I firmly believe a Govt run fully funded mandate is way to go; with right people in charge whose mission is to have the energy products we need&desire available at least cost (financially, environmental and lifestyle) to Nation, citizens and world. Letting a number of “bottom liners” whose approach I believe is: minimize their investment, minimize their risk, earliest return and maximize their profits will accomplish what they are driven toward; and we will pay dearly (money, environment and lifestyle).

We need Govt to objectively and fully evaluate (& inform) all viable possibilities with Nation&citizens investment required and return on said investment. “Cap&Trade” appears to me to be promoted by special interests and appears to be only option presented as alternative to business-as-usual scenario!!

Note: While I expect my above MMT predictions to compare well relatively with EPA&NAM/ACCF data there were instances where I felt adjustments were required; e.g., Actuals should be identical yet NAM/ACCF plots show 2005 Kwhrs at 3750 Billion while EPA shows 4067 an 8 % difference; EPA benchmarks oil at 2005 ($ 50/barrel) and shows a very minor (less than 1 % per year) growth in price due to Carbon tax, i.e., Carbon tax having virtually no substantial impact on oil demand from baseline; NAM/ACCF Baseline shows total energy cost up 0.1 $T from 2005 to 2008, yet we know crude oil up over $50 a barrel or cost of crude alone up a half $T from 2005 to 2008! Given this obvious variance with escalating oil costs and having considerable info on oil, I decided to use my oil demand info at $ 100 a barrel crude for EPA&NAM/ACCF oil expenditures and oil MMT. Oil is a particularly important area as my calculations indicate in 2008 oil contributes 50 % of energy MMTCO2 and 70 % of the total US energy expenditure; and in my EPA 2025 estimates oil contributes 59 % of energy MMTCO2 and 64 % of the total US energy expenditure; yet EPA&NAM/ACCF documents talk mostly about electricity; we have to deal with oil MMTCO2&demand&cost and reduce all with a vengeance, e.g., as per my “vengeance” predictions in above table!!! Demand is the key, significant demand reduction could significantly reduce both CO2MMTs and cost, otherwise energy costs will continue to grow rapidly and “real” MMT targets very difficult and probably not possible at an affordable cost to achieve!

References:

NAM/ACCF document “Analysis of The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191)….”

EPA document “Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008” March 14, 2008

Comments on Obama and McCain’s totally inadequate energy plans:

1st The real issue, which neither is talking about, is to maintain and/or improve lifestyle at least energy cost while also achieving much less global warming and much less oil demand&cost! Only way I find is to greatly increase the efficiency with which we convert energy into lifestyle – this can do all three: maintains and/or improves lifestyle, lower global warming and reduce demand for oil (therefore reduced oil imports)!!!

Obama web post on energy lead sentence: “Our nation is confronted with two major energy challenges – global climate change and our dependence on foreign oil” Oh ya, only two what about cost and lifestyle? I suppose as Cap and Trade curtails lifestyle while substantially raising cost it is a subject Politicians prefer to avoid or is Obama just “out of touch“? Lifestyle/cost has to be addressed!

McCain: “drill baby drill” supplysider again promoting supply as Bush has been doing for 8 years and we know where this has got us. Great rhetoric but getting a Democrat Congress to go along unlikely. I’m not against drilling, but I am against drilling to make continuing inefficient oil use slightly less painful and perpetuate inefficiency. Also when we drill we need to do it in the best interests of all, i.e., not just special interests: Big oil bids to exploit our national resource, sell on world market at substantial profit with a “cut” for Govt. Pretty neat, all special interests make big money and consumers pay big time.

McCain web site post downloaded 2/11/08 McCain 4/23/07 remarks to Center for Strategic and International Studies: paragraph 29 “I believe Cap and trade…best way to manage costs and maximize benefits…. “ Looks to me like blind faith in markets (see above Cap and Trade assessment); we are just not going to get to the best place with “bottom liners” watching their bottom lines and not Public’s bottom line!!! Are we not in enough trouble from depending on “bottom liners” to maintain and improve lifestyles for all?? We need someone putting the Public 1st in charge and I believe only the Govt has the “muscle”; now if Govt would only get the desire.

Why do I think Govt likes Cap and Trade? Because Govt gets a “cut”, I.e., Govt income, albeit inefficiently collected: as I expect, Govt to give away half the credits while auctioning off the other half so for 2025 I compute EPA scenario carbon tax at 0.135 $T at Govt auction, 0.135 given to Industry and .05 purchased (some of which goes overseas), or 0.32 $T Ctax passed on to consumers for which the Govt “cut” is 0.135 $sT less administrative expenses. So for the Govt to increase income about 0.12 $T Citizens end up paying almost 3 times that amount – pretty inefficient way to collect a tax; wouldn’t it be better to just tell us the truth about Govt income requirements (and for what) and tax directly through current structure and save Citizens 0.2 $sT! Actually it is worse than this: If one includes what Govt should do, I.e., “Attach with a Vengeance” more could be accomplished for a $T less cost to Citizens and as modern economies thrive on low energy cost, substantially reducing energy cost to achieve a lifestyle would really stimulate our economy thereby providing more Govt revenue via traditional sources. All in All I firmly believe Citizen’s lifestyles, economy and Govt revenue all lose with Cap and Trade! The less the burdens, the more economies flourish!

I also believe the last thing Obama wants is to shake up the race, but in case McCain or somebody else (e.g., Press, Barr, Nader) should open the box, Obama needs to be ready. McCain has been trying each week for several weeks now to shake up the race; sometimes with some initial success (a bump) that after a few days of digestion by voters and perhaps other events more than completely dissipates and McCain ends up in poorer position than before he tried to shake up the race. Time will tell if anyone with a mike or printing press will help inform Public as to what Govt could do if they would only act!


mel   October 14th, 2008 7:54 am ET

if saddam were alive he would be our sons of iraq friend again


Rich A.   October 14th, 2008 10:51 am ET

The problem with an unregulated, free energy market is that as long as petroleum energy is the cheapest, alternative energy development stagnates. How do we keep the pressure on to develop alternative energy sources that cost more per kWh?

We, the People have very quick amnesia. Gas is dropping to $2.99 and lower, and people are already ramping up consumption, ditching conservation and resuming our previous lives. I don't get it...during the Depression, conservation and thrift were patriotic. Now, being frugal earns you the scorn of your fellow citizens, you're a peace-nik, a tree-hugger, a whatever. This isn't all the government's fault. We own this problem too.


Larian LeQuella   October 14th, 2008 11:40 am ET

This gets a big: "No Fing $H!T Sherlock!"

We as a species seem to be so shortsighted now we can't remember things that have happened multiple times in our own lifetimes...


NoSoop4U   October 14th, 2008 12:46 pm ET

Easter Island is an excellent example of a people making themselves extinct by raping the resources of the island. We are doing the same thing at a much larger scale.

Capitalists need to understand that selling energy is not the only way to make money. Being a middle man between the OPEC countries and the American people is no longer working out as the "life blood of our economy". The Republicans have proven once again that an economy can't survive when the people don't have jobs. We should be manufacturing the devices that create energy therefore people would have manufacturing, installation, and service jobs. The payback on a solar array today can be as long as the life of the system, but this would change if we simply changed the supply to demand ratio. There is plenty of money to be made in this industry if we put our minds to it. Conservatives only want to focus on Oil, gas, and coal as they are obsessed with fossil fuels.

We are such a greedy and ignorant society. We are so self centered that we couldn't do the right thing for the greater good of the country if there was a gun to our head. Me me me me me. We will never learn.


Franko   October 14th, 2008 1:19 pm ET

"Now, being frugal earns you the scorn of your fellow citizens,"

Continuously increasing consumption,
Your Patriotic duty to the economy.

Continuously increasing the profits,
Justifies any corporate policy.

Some dictators, very convenient,
Good International Corporate Executives.


Dawn Hightree   October 14th, 2008 2:32 pm ET

i woke up to a dream that had me upset for days over the destruction we are doing to this planet. I feel that I have a grip on how we can solve the problems and they are basic and doable. but the problem still remains that something is wrong with our government. They have something inherently wrong with them. How can they be so stupid to even believe that any pollution is ok when the south pole is melting? What is wrong with these people? What happens if we don't rotate correctly around the sun? Would if we dig so much into the earth and kill it so much that a part breaks off and we fall of the orbit? The fact that the media and government portrays this earth as something that grows back like a weed when we poison it is astounding. The fact that they can't see the reality that the Earth is a living part of the whole of our existance is astounding. The fact that they can't see that digging oil out could cause plate instability, hello-duh and cause more earthquakes that way even. They don't even measure the damage they do to the earth by digging into it. They don't have it scientifically determined what creates the Earth to sustain itself in Orbit. Meaning, if the north and south poles need to be frozen has anything to do with the orbit. what will happen if our orbit goes off a little to the other planets? what will happen if an asteroid gets through our atmosphere. Since we know that our atmosphere has pollution in it; why are they not designing an air filter to help process it out? Why are they not putting gases in the atmosphere to fix the problem? The most important thing to human life and the future lives is the health of our air, food, soil, water, and the ability to cure sickness. This is more important than driving a car yet they make driving a car that pollutes the earth as having more of a say than the people who want to help the Earth become healthy again. How messed up is that? they act like money is so important yet they aren't even seeing that inflation is something not to do and we need to go back to when things didn't cost so much. we need to undue the damage of the cost of living is having on us not increase taxes and wages. Hello. duh. Go back not keep making the same mistakes. Our homes today are not being built to utilize the sun in the daytime. What is wrong with us? it should be a given that every home utilizes natural energy resources. It should be a law today. Not a choice. It is not a choice to pollute at all. there is no choice whether or not we can put poison in foods we sell; then why is there the double standard that we can poison the air or soil in the making of products? Some thing is sincerely wrong with this country and it is scarey and sickning to say the least. The amount of money for this war that we could not afford. Yes it is sad for their country to have heartache; but we could not afford it we needed to get off of pollution causing energy sources #1. Over time they could have tried to help the country in less dramatic ways. Something is sincerely wrong with this country and our people who don't hear the reality of life and why we can breathe air.


Franko   October 15th, 2008 3:54 am ET

Do not worry, little Dawn Hightree
The monster in your dreams,
Is created by you

You, the creator of your pet monster,
Are a bigger,unable to be destroyed, monster
Poor planet Earth, just Dawn Hightree's sandbox


Ken in Dallas   October 15th, 2008 9:36 am ET

Frankie, you need lots
of work to make the haiku
form work well for you.

Just for the sake of repetition, we have a game-changing technique/technology ready to adopt in geothermal heat pump systems, which are more than twice as efficient as traditional air-exchange air conditioning systems. These systems have the further advantage of being highly labor-intensive to install, which implies both immediate opportunities for blue-collar employment and longer-range opportunities for invention of more efficient installation methods. The energy savings available by this means, at 10-15% of the total national energy budget, are enough to make this single technology a game changer, more than the energy required to support adoption of electric vehicles.

Coupling adoption of geothermal heat pumps with adoption of electric vehicles would enable us to reduce overall oil consumption by more than 50% within 20 years, enough to free us from dependence on Middle East production, and a net reduction in overall electricity consumption. Compressed natural gas for transportation power is a baby step, but it will electrics that really free us from Middle Eastern oil and the egregious inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

We've wasted a LOT of time, but there are effective steps, based on proven technologies, that we can take right now. Time's a-wastin, folks.


Mike   October 15th, 2008 11:09 am ET

I have no problem what-so-ever with switcing as soon as possible to 100% clean energy. I worry about the envronment as much as the next person.

However, for all those folks who are whining and griping about the fact that "oh mother earth is sick and we are the cause of it and it sickens me, and there is something really wrong with this country!!!" I have this to say ... if you lived in an area like I do where the state is one of the largest coal producers in the nation, and you see that THAT IS ALL THE INDUSTRY YOU HAVE, and despite your state governments desperate attempts to attract industry outside of coal, after 3 different governors(of both parites) and 16 years of trying to attract business in order to diversify the economy, and your STILL in the same situation ... then YOU can pay to feed the millions who are going to be out of a good paying job with great benefits when your economic A-bomb you want to see go off finally does go boom.

It's not so one sided when you depend on these jobs to feed your families, to buy clothes, to make your house payments, to pay the rent, even to give your children a nice christmas. Did you ever stop to think just one second that perhaps THIS is why not as much is getting done as you'd like?

States like WV, KY who's economies largely depend on coal (nearly completely in alot of areas of the states) need help in order to diversify their economies in preperation for the phasing out of the coal industry. However, no companies, other than coal companies, are going to open shop here due to the strong compensation laws, the strong Union laws that it takes to keep coal industries honest, and protect the workers in such a hazardous work environment. The more dependant your state is on coal, the more stringent these afformentnioned laws are, and the less attractive your state is to companies outside of the coal industry(who are only here because that's where the coal is).

So, when you can come up with answers WITHOUT it including dropping an economic heroshima, I'll be more inline with your way of thinking. Untill then I'll just largely tune you out even though everyone knows we can't keep this up....when you put the health of the earth in the long term against the survival of my children now, I'll pick my children everytime without any regret or second thougts.

And a note to folks like Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of WV ........ PORK, in the form of building bridges or paving roads is NOT the answer unless it is to open up an area of the state formerly somewhat isolated(which is building infrastructure) ... pork for the sake of pork just hurts the USA, and props up a broken system in the state.


Franko   October 15th, 2008 11:12 am ET

We, individually, can design, choose and use intelligently.
But, can is not do; when the goal of another takes priority

Suicide bomber in one culture, Suicide consumer in another
So impressive is my car, desired by the opposite, am I


Mike   October 15th, 2008 11:33 am ET

I have no problem what-so-ever with switching as soon as possible to 100% clean energy. I worry about the envronment as much as the next person.

However, for all those folks who are whining and griping about the fact that "oh mother earth is sick and we are the cause of it and it sickens me, and there is something really wrong with this country!!!" I have this to say ... if you lived in an area like I do where the state is one of the largest coal producers in the nation, and you see that THAT IS ALL THE INDUSTRY YOU HAVE, and despite your state governments desperate attempts to attract industry outside of coal, after 4 different governors(of both parties) and 20 years of trying to attract business in order to diversify the economy, and your STILL in the same situation ... then YOU can pay to feed the millions who are going to be out of a good paying job with great benefits when your economic A-bomb you want to see go off finally does go boom.

It's not so one sided when you depend on these jobs to feed your families, to buy clothes, to make your house payments, to pay the rent, even to give your children a christmas that isn't full of disappointment. Did you ever stop to think just one second that perhaps THIS is why not as much is getting done as you'd like?

Right now in WV, about 30% of the workforce is employed by the coal industry. Another 15-20% is employed by coal related industries(Mining Equipment rebuild shops, coal trucking companies, mining technology related industries etc etc). That 45-50% buys alot of the cars, the groceries, the clothing providing retail related jobs. Now, granted there are parts of the state that are not as dependant on the coal industry, and wouldn't be as effected as most of the state, but these areas are the EXCEPTION to the rule. All in all, I'd say 70% to 80% of WV's economy get's it's money (either directly, or indirectly) from the coal industry.

States like WV, KY who's economies largely depend on coal (nearly completely in alot of areas of the states) need help in order to diversify their economies in preperation for the phasing out of the coal industry. However, no companies, other than coal companies, are going to open shop here due to the strong compensation laws, the strong Union laws that it takes to keep coal industries honest, and protect the workers in such a hazardous work environment. The more dependant your state is on coal, the more stringent these afformentnioned laws are, and the less attractive your state is to companies outside of the coal industry(who are only here because that's where the coal is).

So, when you can come up with answers WITHOUT it including dropping an economic heroshima, I'll be more inline with your way of thinking. Untill then I'll just largely tune you out even though everyone knows we can't keep this up....when you put the health of the earth in the long term against the survival of my children now, I'll pick my children everytime without any regret or second thougts.

And a note to folks like Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of WV ........ PORK, in the form of building bridges or paving roads is NOT the answer unless it is to open up an area of the state formerly somewhat isolated(which is building infrastructure) ... pork for the sake of pork just hurts the USA, and props up a broken system in the state.


CB_Brooklyn   October 15th, 2008 8:40 pm ET

The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elite’s Agenda
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=60


Franko   October 15th, 2008 10:43 pm ET

"Untill then I’ll just largely tune you out
even though everyone knows we can’t keep this up…."

Twice wrong
Ignoring the howling of rabid dogs, loudly planning 50% popupation extermination
We certainly have kept expanding, devising new survival adaptations

Wrong again, the two are not in conflict (effective, EcoBrainwashing)
"when you put the health of the earth in the long term against the survival of my children now, I’ll pick my children everytime without any regret or second thougts."


Cheryl   October 16th, 2008 8:40 pm ET

Supply and demand. Have any other 'stupid consumers' (what we're treated like) noticed that prices spike near ahem, holidays, spring break, summer vacation...we are told it's an increase in crude oil prices due to.....picture your garbage can and everything it it-that how many excuses we are given....yet the same people drive to the same place everyday-and cannot AFFORD to go anywhere else. The sooner we get off the oil, the sooner some of these other countries will have to deal with our POLITICAL agenda on a level field. Everytime you make a purchase you VOTE with your wallet. something that won't sell will go down in price, then into oblivion. I saw huge lines during the Hurricanes, (Days & days on end) for ANY fuel, including Propane. It looked like a 3rd world country-and that's NOT that far away, it was a very scary but REAL glimpse into our NEAR future!!


Franko   October 16th, 2008 11:01 pm ET

"was a very scary but NEAR glimpse into our NEAR future!!"
"was" is the key word to focus on. "future" glimpsed, can be avoided.
FEMA looks after those who look after themselves.
Plan like a squirrel hiding a nut. Not like a Daisy blowing in the wind.


Franko   October 17th, 2008 11:27 am ET

Luboš Motl: "Cuba adds 1% to world's oil reserves"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7675234.stm

Just make Cuba democratic, like it ot not, part of Unions are US ?
Or would the EcoCommies, (US version), stop the drilling, in a new US state ?
And deny the quest for democracy, for the sake of a demogogery ?
Then again, Kill 1/2 human , Cuba population, just a drop in the barrel !


Aaron   October 18th, 2008 11:05 pm ET

Please stop telling me that drilling for more oil in America will solve our problems, much less even make a dent. We consume 25% of the world’s crude oil and we only have 4% of the world’s oil reserve. Maybe someone can help me with the math, but how does maximizing the drilling of 4% help us reach 25%. Now I’m sure that some of you are thinking that our 25% consumption is out of the total oil being drilled and processed throughout the world, not the actual total oil reserve, thus a comparison between the 4% reserve and the 25% consumed is a farce, but actually it is not. If we dry up our 4%, we really will be completely dependent on foreign oil. So enough with the offshore drilling and use or loose the land etc. etc. By the way, we can expect to see a drop in the 25% of consumption, not because we will use less in the coming years, but because the standard of living is constantly increasing worldwide. Thus more countries will be competing as buyers with the US for energy. This is bad, because it will raise cost and produce more polution.

So what is the answer?

Thomas L. Friedman, a three-time Pulitzer Prize—winner and lets face it a freakin genius, has brought up a very interesting prediction that I happen to agree with. As more and more countries increase their energy consumption, we will find ourselves globally ready for the next economic boom. Energy Technology. If America is not the pioneer and leader in Energy Technology, we will find ourselves no longer “number 1”. We used to be the leader in Car technology and production, as an example, along with the recently experienced IT boom.

Energy Technology is going to save this country and we need to get on it right now, and the candidate who has shown the most initiative is Obama. McCain talks mainly about clean coal, nuclear, and offshore drilling, but he has not talked about alternative energy research. Obama has. I’m not saying that energy research wont continue under McCain, but we all know that it wont get properly funded. Part of Obama’s plan to aid education includes those seeking PhDs and Master degrees, you know the dorks we made fun of, but all hope that they’ll save the world instead of making a revenge list. In the past 8 years, research grants have been butchered and research in this country has come to a crawl in comparison to the 90’s. Do you know how much money the average post Dr. makes in this country? Everyone assumes that they go straight to the private sector and make millions, well sorry folks, but that aint true. First they have to work an average of 50 hour work weeks for around $25,000 to $40,000 a year for a few years so that they can get published by leading journals in their respective fields a few times. Oh yeah, did I mention that most of these post docs have school debt to pay off? Lets see, 4 years times undergraduate tuition, plus 2-3 years graduate tuition of Masters, and/or plus 4-6 years graduate tuition for PhD. Lets just say somewhere between 25 and 100k, depending on where they went to school.

My point? Education and research is the key to staying on top, and if we want to continue to be “number 1”, well,… you know who to vote for…


Franko   October 20th, 2008 2:57 pm ET

People vote for cash in their pocket,
Pie in the mouth, not holographically projected pie in the sky..
Burn coal now, feed he plants, that feed US


mike winkler   October 22nd, 2008 8:03 pm ET

Please look at what idiotic policies prevent any real movement away from fossil fuels. We cannot sustain any progress if all is for naught as son as light brent crude hits $69. Don't blame it on oil companies-blame it on your representatives. They are riding on fool's errand pusuing wind energy and garbage thinking like it.
If we spent half as much money investing in new technology as we spend on wind energy subsidies, we might have a chance with cellular ethanol. NG from coal, and capturing passive power BY redesigning our grid and the electric motor, we could shrink CO by unbelievable levels. Forget beating the IC engine, the EPA is already making its' exhaust cleaner than the intake.
We are buying lottery tickets when we should be saving, IE, our policies downright suck.
http://www.lulu.com/content/1431821 (email me if you want a free copy)
winklerorama@gmail.com


Robert Carlton   October 29th, 2008 6:28 pm ET

Instead of drilling for more oil which is about to run out, we should drill for the fires that are already burning. Why use funding to lock us into a oil based economy nearly depleted of its resources? Instead, we should realize that geothermal energy is the end product, there is nothing better for the world than this type of energy source. We need to make this change to a Geothermal based economy before oil runs out. Oil will still be needed for some industries and products such as, plastics, lubrication, and asphalt, etc…

Geothermal energy benefits include, zero greenhouse gases, zero nuclear contamination, zero nuclear waste, zero spills into the oceans, does not depend on sunny days or windy days, and creates jobs that build the hydrogen infrastructure we will need for the future of energy independence. In fact the only down side I can see with geothermal energy is the remote locations that need to be addressed. It is understandable that remote locations have their challenges,but have their benefits too. But once accessed we are not limited to how many geothermal power plants we install in that location. Some geothermal power plants will be used for supplying electricity to towns and/or cities and others can and should be used to produce hydrogen (which makes remote locations ideal), allot of hydrogen, enough to use for hydrogen burning power plants, transportation, and enough to stockpile and sell as a commodity. We need to do this now, not after the oil runs out. Some other alternatives are fine, like wind, solar, and natural gas are great for a bridge to the future, but they are not the end-product. Natural gas is plentiful but is finite, wind needs windy conditions, solar needs sunny days, but a geothermal power plant just needs to be built.

My questions are; Should we?
Could we?
Will we?

Thank you for listening,
we need to agree JEV12B


minkwikdink   November 6th, 2008 8:56 pm ET

I want to emphasize again that I offer a copy of my book to you totally free of charge, with no strrings attached and no spamming. Just send me an email and I will send you a softcopy of
"WIND POWER...IT BLOWS!" Free Book email Winklerorama@gmail.com


Gholamreza Bagheri Darbandi   December 9th, 2009 2:21 pm ET

Dear Sir
Sub: saving energy electrical CNG compressors Air conditioning split unit our proposal about 100000 qty./year(1-5 HP, horse power)

. Please send us your best proposal air conditioning compressors hermetic or semi hermetic which driven by internal combustion engine by city natural gases .Please note that driven by electrical energy is not our proposal.

You’re faithfully
Carrier city co.
G.Bagrei.Darbandi


Leave Your Comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.


subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

Are you a gadgethead? Do you spend hours a day online? Or are you just curious about how technology impacts your life? In this digital age, it's increasingly important to be fluent, or at least familiar, with the big tech trends. From gadgets to Google, smartphones to social media, this blog will help keep you informed.

subscribe RSS Icon
twitter
Powered by WordPress.com VIP