Posted on 07/11/2008 11:09:17 PM PDT by flyfree
No combination of solar, wind, ethanol, biodiesel, or anything else will allow us independence in the foreseeable future.
We are in a hole—and still digging. We have oil at a catastrophic $140 a barrel yet no sign of a bipartisan energy policy assured of passage—let alone the forceful execution needed to expand domestic supplies and restrict domestic consumption. Instead, we have the blame game about greedy speculators, careless consumers, and cowardly politicians, inevitable maybe in an election year but a betrayal of the promise of America.
In the meantime, as gasoline soars over $4 a gallon, the availability of credit for enterprise shrinks, home values collapse, and food and fuel prices skyrocket, afflicting the American consumer with a triple whammy so devastating that the economic stimulus of the $120 billion tax rebate has been wiped out. And where is the wealth going? To enemies of America, to some of the world's worst leaders, such as the oil autocrats of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
|
McCain might pick Romney for VP
Well, the reality makes your post childish at best. McCain will be the republican nominee barring his dropping comatose or dying prior to the convention. So what does that say about your ‘imagination’ playing like it is a realistic possibiltiy?
hogwash, we can and are doing as Brazil has done by buiding hundreds of alcohol refineries. We will be able to use sugar rather than corn. Brazil uses a majority of alcohol fuels and there is no reason why we can’t very quickly...along with elecrtic cars which will be coming to the front next year. The problem we have is a sort of brainwashing that even conservatives are under thinking that we must stick it out with oil as our main energy source. That is a lie and is suicidal if we continue with it. Also, nanosolar has incredible solar panels for much less cost and about 5x the efficiency. Big solar power plants on the way!
|
They have sugar and we don't !
Using other biofuels to make alcohol use "MORE" energy to produce then they give back so it's not a good option plus they are causing worldwide food inflation that isn't worth it.
The best options are nuke plants and fusion and fusion isn't ready yet so it has to be the nuke plants.
Right now, I see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as our two biggest energy problems. Everyone needs to stay on McCain's case. His “softening” on offshore drilling might actually turn into some actual progress.
I found some of the comments on the U.S. News site revealing. Those advocating for drilling outnumbered all others, but these same folks showed a grasp of the situation by also calling for R&D into alternatives. That's a good thing. I think that is what most Republicans are calling for, despite the Dems claims otherwise.
I found it interesting that the Dem information machine had been able to spread their misinformation so effectively.
Waterboard for the reasons, then imprison for treason,
the obstructionists in the Congress and the Patent Office.
Several problems. Back in the 70s when I took physics and did the problem to supply the U.S. with the electricity we were using back then would require capturing all the energy falling as sunlight on an area the size of New Mexico. It would simply be too expensive to build and even if you built it it would have to be in a place like New Mexico where the sun shines. Pushing that much power East where it would be actually used would just not be feasible. Solar just don’t cut it. Great for heating your pool, though.
For the life of me I don’t understand the addle brained thinking of people. What in the world is the problem, we have 100 years of high grade oil and 500 years of oil shale and even more of oil sand. Drill here, drill now isn’t just a bumper sticker, it is only logical but I guess that is too hard for our politicians and high school drop out voters.
Wrong Mort. Find some conservative leaders with the intestinal fortitude to call AGW for the hoax that it is. Start building nuclear plants, drilling on the coasts and at ANWR. Start building coal to liquid plants.
That would lead to energy independence in the very foreseeable future. Those are just a few simple, common sense things that can be done. Developing technologies for better mileage and cutting subsidies for ethanol and the oil companies would add to that independence. One or two blends of gasoline instead of the cluster-crap we have now. In summation, you’re very wrong Mort. We can, but will we? If we do other countries may not like us.............right, Barry?
Wrong. Only ONE researcher consistently produces studies showing a negative energy balance for corn ethanol--ALL the rest show a positive energy balance. And the positive energy yield is even higher for switchgrass (not yet ready for market, but being researched heavily).
Really? I suggest, oh ye of little knowledge, that the reality is that we MUST stick it out with "oil as our main energy source" for the foreseeable future and anyone who suggest otherwise, is living in dillusion-land or simply willfully ignorant--which all libs and Environuts qualify under both criteria.
Hogwash, brainwash....the parody of your post is just too much...soooo...all we have to do is plugin cars or buy sugar...if only you had a clue.
Ethanol from Sugar Cane translates to oil at about $40 per barrel, but only if you buy the sugar at the international price and not at the the US subsidized price. In Brazil it’s viable because they don’t subsidize their sugarcane farmers. But even then it’s only a viable a supplement to gasoline not a replacement.
It does say something when a silly rag like US News can identify the right policy and congress can’t.
I think you need to re-do your calculations.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html
“A 10,000 square mile solar energy farm that produces 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day would produce 365 x 46,464,000 = 16,956,360,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year or about 17 trillion kilowatt-hours, which is 17,000 terawatt-hours or 17 petawatt-hours.
Tera- (symbol: T) is a prefix in the SI system of units denoting 1012, 1 Trillion or 1,000,000,000,000 (1 million million) therefore, 1 terawatt = 1 Trillion watts.
In physics and mathematics, peta- (symbol: P) is a prefix in the SI (system of units) denoting 1015, 1 Quadrillion or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (1 billion million) therefore, 1 petawatt = 1 Quadrillion watts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States
“The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTU (105 exajoules, or 29000 TWh) in 2005, equivalent to an (average) consumption rate of 3.3 TW.”
Do you seriously think the environmentalists will allow a 10,000 square mile solar farm? LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.