Skip to comments.Chu to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices
Posted on 02/29/2012 8:08:50 AM PST by Hojczyk
Hey, at least Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer. When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that theyre not focusing on that and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push:
We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this, said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what were trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOEs ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as great and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
But is the overall goal to get our price of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy, Chu replied. We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and well help the American economy and the American consumers.
The Heritage Foundation jumped all over Chus comments:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
People keep saying that high gas prices will be the end of Obama. It absolutely will not be. If we’re not in a war, with our liberties suspended, then watch for the “gas stamps” (or equivalent) to come out soon. Mark my words, it’s all part of the plan. The plan is to give all power, means and resources to those who will support the “establishment” and criminalize and pillage everyone else. Nothing new about it.
We don’t need an alternative fuel, we need an alternative President.
We could use both. But until the day comes that we can find an unsubsidized, cost effective, alternative fuel (algae’s possible), drill here, drill now!
Hey! That picture is two weeks old! Are you kidding me? $3.65? We are at $4.25 now!
we got to get these maggot sucking, belly crawling dung eaters out of DC and in a cell
At first I thought these were Obama supporters making pain for themselves so as to be able to vote for Obama at a time of what will probably be $6 or $7/gallon gas. Then I realized it was a radical cult of the radicals in Iran who perform this as a ritual every year...
“We dont need an alternative fuel, we need an alternative President.”
I’d love to see that on a million bumper stickers.
Nice! Mind if I use it?
Great idea. But that is a lot of writing.
Despite all of the other indignities, insults and offenses happening under the Carter Administration, it was not until gas prices spiked and rationing happened that his polls tanked for good. If Obama plans to issue rationing stamps he may as well plan on taking that NBA color analyst job at ESPN next season too.
Right. Obama voters are in favor of high gas prices. High gasoline prices will increase their support for Obama.
They are either actually unaffected by the price of fuel for various reasons, or, they believe they are unaffected.
So, they are just fine with Obama and high fuel prices.
Not in the slightest. I can email you the excel file if you’d like.
Remind the tools that food is grown and harvested how and gets from Point A to B (store) how.
Wasn’t Obama looking for a new campaign slogan?
“Were not interested in lowering gas prices”
He should run with it.
>But until the day comes that we can find an unsubsidized, cost effective, alternative fuel (algaes possible), drill here, drill now!
Algae is not likely to every be particularly possible. Once again it’s an issue of energy density. You need a heck of a lot of land area and time to concentrate enough energy to make a fuel. Fossil fuel has used quite a bit of time to collect all the energy in it. Algae wouldn’t have that luxury.
Honestly, there are only 2 alternatives I can picture past fossil fuels. The first is hydrogen powered fuel cells (which is still fairly poor on energy density, but far better than batteries, or any of the conversion involved in biologic fuels). You just use a nuke plant to crack the hydrogen, and you have somewhat reasonable energy density. The second is someone finally getting high temperature superconductors to around 300C. At that point you can conduct useful quantities of current at room temperature and you could have everything go electric since you could store enough power to actually go some distance. Also, there would be huge savings in transmission with such a tech. Of course there could also be some pie in the sky battery breakthrough, but the superconductor breakthrough would be much better in a lot of ways.
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.