[AmericaUnited]

This country needs to attack the energy problem with the same determination and resources as building the A bomb (Manhattan Project) or putting a man on the moon (Apollo Project). We should build 100 modern nuclear reactors, drill offshore, open up ANWR, screw the 200 blends of gasoline, tap our vast reserves of natural gas, etc, etc.

And you know who's SCREWING this country in each and every one of these simple solutions...? THE DEMOCRATS!!! I HATE THOSE PEOPLE WITH A PASSION!

[carumba]

Horses, by gum. I'm buying stock it a buggy whip factory...um er ah...he he...bicycle tire patch company...shoe leather tannery. On second thought, I think I will keep my auto and wait to see what happens.

[carl in alaska]

I'll pass on the nuclear reactors, because they produce too much radioactive waste that has to be shipped across the country and disposed of safely somewhere for hundreds of years. But I agree with you about the need for much more research in this area, and drilling in ANWR, getting rid of 84 different gasoline blends, and tapping into NG resources. We also need a lot more distributed generation of power using wind and solar power. Solar has moved to a new level of technology with the first large scale solar plant being built in California using a field of hundreds of solar-powered Sterling engines. This could also be done locally in areas with a high percentage of sunny days.

Our energy policy needs a lot of improvement and it's influenced too much by radical environmenalists, big utility companies and foreign lobbyists. We need more good old American ingenuity and you'll be seeing that increasingly in the future. We have underinvested in energy research over the last 25 years, but that is changing rapidly. This will be a totally different economy in another 25 years. It has to change because the price of oil is going to keep going up.

[WOSG]

I agree with you.
"This country needs to attack the energy problem with the same determination and resources as building the A bomb (Manhattan Project) or putting a man on the moon (Apollo Project)."

And the goal should be SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Meaning, create an energy-transportation complex for the next 100 years that is ecomically sound, environmentally benign, and ensures we avoid the political and economic costs of depdency on foreign sources of energy.

You ideas are all sound, but on nukes
... but the number is 400 nuclear power plants, not 100.

20% of our electricity is generated by nuclear energy with 104 power plants.
We should make it 80%. Build 80% of our electricity power generation from nukes,
this takes coal out of most of generation, reducing global warming impact and pollution. This also frees up some coal for syn-gas.

The author basically pans hydrogen as a non-solution - CORRECT - and points to ethanol and methanol as the answer.
Partially corect: We can get diversity in fuel sources by using bio-deisel, ethanol and coal syn-gas. These arent cheap. Cheaper may be to rely on domestic oil and gas...

but then we are stuck with the mathematics of 20 million barrels a day of consumption and only 6 million barrels a day of production. The author calls on huge agricultural movement here, to produce 4 times what we produce in food.

More practical in my view is moving a large part of our transport energy to plug-in hybrids. These can reduce our use of gasoline by 2/3rds, by using electricity (generated via nuclear power) to get us there. Then, using bio-based fuels like ethanol mixes we get a further reduction.

WE need to think of the solutions as complementary and not competing. In other words, wind power, nuclear, drill more, ANWR, ethanol, hybrids, etc. ALL OF THEM can play a role.

We are 12 million barrels a day in hock to foreign oil. ALL of these alternatives can play a role.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It's not just the Democrats.

Katherine Harris and Mel Martinez oppose drilling off the coast of Florida. They are cretins.