Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

American-Made Solution to the Energy Crisis

By Congressman Devin Nunes
August 14, 2006   |   51 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
This bipartisan bill would provide short-term relief while funding a long-term solution for energy freedom. We would accomplish this by opening just 2,000 acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to exploration and investing the federal share of the lease and royalty revenue into an energy trust fund. This trust fund would be used to pay for numerous renewable, alternative, and advanced energy programs.

-- Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

51 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 51
August 14, 2006
THIS BILL IS NOT THE ANSWER.

Try again. And this time try a little harder, will you?
Thanks in advance.
Comment
2 of 51
August 14, 2006
Considering we use 225 billion gallons of gasoline/diesel/jet fuel annually in the US right now and import 60% of it we need to take advantage of our own resources when we can. Right now we send >gasp!< $20 million overseas every hour of every day for imported oil!

The North Slope oil fields currently provide 16% of our domestic production which is 943,000 barrels per day but they used to provide 2,000,000 barrels per day. These fields are in decline no matter how you look at it and the frozen-tundra-wasteland next door known as the coastal plain of ANWR is estimated to hold 9 to 16 billion barrels of easily recoverable oil *and* 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Drill away boys! The three polar bears that live there will not mind a bit and too bad if they do, we have drilling rigs all over the lower 48 and we seem to be getting along just fine with them.
Comment
3 of 51
August 14, 2006
365+ million acres = Alaska
19+ million acres = ANWR
17.5 million acres = Portion of ANWR permanently closed to development (Wilderness & Refuge)
1.5 million acres = Portion that will be surveyed for drilling (which is nothing more than a frozen tundra wasteland)
2000 acres = Portion that will actually be drilled on!

I say fire up they drills boys!
Comment
4 of 51
August 14, 2006
Rep. Devin Nunes is no friend of the American people. He is off track if he thinks that opening up ANWR is going to undo the misdirection our country has taken with regard funding.

Matt has already pointed out the amounts being spent on the war. It is supposed to be for fighting terrorism but the greatest terror that will come to us is when we no longer have energy to run our cars or our industry because our lifestyles will have become obsolete. Gradually, our continued dependence on oil, even if tapered out by spoiling ANWR, wil pull us further and further down.

Why not enact a few laws to promote minimum mpg for vehicles, not average minimum? Why not increase funding in the direction of renewables and decrease military funding? Is it un-American to hope we have a viable country in the future?

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
5 of 51
August 14, 2006
The US must lead the way to clean energy tech. with our increadible R&D capability. We can turn these technologies into global brands that will usher in a new era of peace & sustainability. Of course, we'll profit handsomely as a secondary reward. Every nation in the world will need to use clean energy... and as global warming's effects increase... most probably, using clean energy will be mandatory.

We need to create a "manhatten project" to focus on clean energy, both production & storage. Production needs to focus on: 1. ultra-cheap to produce solar cells. 2. an cheap ultra-capacitor to store and act as a buffer to naturally intermittent supplies of renewable energy.
Comment
6 of 51
August 14, 2006
There is no need for us to submit to these repulsive half -measures. Mess up the ANWR... for what? So that the renewables arena can eak out 1.3 billion a year for the next 30 years? Screw that.

The Iraq war costs 1.5 billion per week. The Pentagon budget is 400 billion dollars. Over a billion PER DAY! This BTW, is up by 41% since 2001.

Its time to invest in our future --- heavily. I'd shoot for 30 billion per year into renewables... NOW.
Comment
7 of 51
August 14, 2006
From what I understand, it will take 5-10 yrs before the first barrel of oil is pumped from ANWR. Then what will happen is the price of oil will drop to a point that it is not economicly feasible to use renewable or alternative fuels. Again we will revert back to big engines, etc.

I think it is going to hurt, but we (Americans) need to be forced into alternatives by a higher price at the pump. This will encourage energy efficiency and reducing energy usage. The market will force this shift only through higher prices. Technology advancement will only be invested in, again, if oil prices are high, which will drive down the price of alternative energy by the time the oil would flow from ANWR. This IS happening now, investments are being made and efficiency and reduction is in the minds of everyone who pays a bill for energy use. This bill is not the answer in my opinion.
Comment
8 of 51
August 15, 2006
Adrian,

Macroeconomics dictates a slow move away from oil and we are already doing that right now. Our gas guzzlers, RV's, boats, aircraft etc. are all part of this and any quick change could easily crash ours & others economies.

Within a few decades we will be using very little oil and will be using hydrogen, biofuels, electrics etc. instead so my thinking is lets drill ANWR right now while its still a valuable product and put the billions of dollars into our own economy. A few decades after the last drop of oil is pumped from the ground nobody will even know we drilled ANWR or any place else so I see no problem with preserving something that's easily restored anyway.

H.R. 5890 is an ok idea but only because it gets the drills going in ANWR for currently needed oil, the market is already taking care of growth in all segments of energy worldwide anyway whether this bill adds any funds or not.
Comment
9 of 51
August 15, 2006
David. If you think that drilling ANWR is the answer, please explain what happens after the oil is gone. It is not such a great amount. Are we to continue with our present policies of producing gas guzzlers? Is there not to be a limit on the size and power of vehicular engines? Do we not even realize that curtailing of the wasteful burning of fuels should be of primary importance to our legislatures and be the impetus of legislation rather than the spoiling of whatever pristine lands remain for our country?

Granted that most of us have not visited ANWR but it is like taking the last of the savings in our account out of the bank when we say it is ok to fiddle around this way. I guess this is the "credit" attitude but I cannot go along with it.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
10 of 51
August 15, 2006
What Rep. Nunes is suggesting comes far short of a "manhattan project" level of commitment.

I didn't mean to jump on a politcal bandwagon -- just pointing out where we might find extra fat in the budget that could be easily trimmed and be redirected to supporting the creation of sustainable energy sources.

Wayne, if you don't want to take the money from the Pentagon... you can take it from Social Security or education or the forest service or whatever. I don't care.

Just stop dallying around and get something done on this. Please.
Comment
11 of 51
August 15, 2006
Thank you Rep. Nunes. A refreshing positive look at the realities of the situation. We do need a "manhattan project" for alternate and revewable energy developement that is funded well and staffed by scientists and economists not politicians and activists.

It is amazing that even in commenting on this article how many responses immediately take off on their own political band wagon rather than solutions. I don't think 2000 acres of black flies and mosquitos are revelant at this point????
Comment
12 of 51
August 16, 2006
Come on now we can make 5,000 - 20,000 gallons of biodiesel from algae per acre. We can make ethanol and methanol from corn , wood , grass and waste products also from algae.
We can make electric from wind , hydro , solar , tidel , wave and so on.
We can manufacture Hydrogen from algae from waste CO2 from coal and biomass fired generators. It also makes biodiesel oil from the same system. It also removes the CO2 and the heat from the smoke stacks.
But NO we are to check our tire pressure and conserve on energy our selfs. Well let me tell you. I check my tire prssure every time I gas up. And it has never changed but the gas price sure does and it is only the oil manufacturers that make out on the deal.
I want more FFV on the road so I do not have to pay for gasoline.
Comment
13 of 51
August 16, 2006
Drilling in ANWR is not the solution. It will not even make a difference in the price of oil. It is not even a short term solution.


The only solution is to break away from oil all together.


The number of vehicles on the road today that run off of oil based products is enough to last for the next 20 years. We must stop manufacturing all and start with ethanol, and fuel cell and biodiesel products today if not yesterday.

Does nobody understand how important it is ? Or must there be something to kick our butts off of the addiction.

I say stop with drilling for oil now. Before the problem gets much , MUCH MORE WORSE.
Comment
14 of 51
August 16, 2006
>>This trust fund would be used to pay for numerous renewable, alternative, and advanced energy programs. >>

Sounds to me like they're looking to give more money to "clean coal", nuclear and agrabusiness with a bone or two thrown to what most people think of when they hear "renewable".
Comment
15 of 51
August 16, 2006
What a terrible idea, to open up ANWR, to pay for Renewable Energy.
Look at the BP Pipe problem that has now appeared. These pipes could burst and cause huge problems.
If Congress cannot come up with any plan that is better than this, then let US PLAN TO GET A NEW CONGRESS
Comment
16 of 51
August 16, 2006
Great stuff, y'all!

Nunes has missed the boat. ANWR's oil reserve is almost negligible in the long term. It serves much better as a symbol of the people's (not just the "environmentalists'") interest in wilderness, pristine and sacrosanct. It's truly amazing it has held out this long against Big Oil!

Let's continue to use it as the potent symbol it has become, in a fight to raise the ludicrously low CAFE standards (or create a newer, more inviolable standard), promote and develop mass transit (PRT? Sure!), AND develop renewable energy sources (since, as has been said, oil use for energy production will likely increase).

By the way, "Manhattan project" gives a bit of a shiver. Please take a look at the existing national-level renewables program proposed by Apollo Alliance (taking its name from a less terrifying time and project!): http://www.apolloalliance.org/. It's a great idea and something politicians of all stripes can support.

-B
Comment
17 of 51
August 16, 2006
Matt Pease,

Sorry good sir if I implied that you were anything less than an earnest, open-minded fellow.

Thanks for supplying the links, I will gladly follow them.

Cheers,
Comment
18 of 51
August 16, 2006
For more info on your beautiful, unscathed wildlife refuge in the pristine, cold and extremely vulnerable North (remember Exxon Valdez), see your unprecedented own National Geographic database:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/08/01/html/ft_20010801.3.html

Wish we had such good magazines...

info@polderpv.nl

the Netherlands
Comment
19 of 51
August 16, 2006
And I want to hear about other facts I don't know....

Speaking of that... Has everyone seen this month's MIT Technology Review Magazine?

A great article there:

http://technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17057

They are running a number of articles regarding global warming:
http://technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17055

Also, front and center on their website is a video that I recommend -- pulls the data on global warming together quite nicely -- something you can show to people that may not fully get what is happening.

http://technologyreview.com

Also, MIT is pooling resources to focus on global warming. Making their own mini manhatten project:
http://web.mit.edu/erc/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/energy-0608.html

When the top scientists in the world drop what they are doing & start thinking feverishly about global warming... shouldn't we all be listening?
Comment
20 of 51
August 16, 2006
Hi Jefe -
No I didn't mean that people are a mob because they don't agree with me. I meant that the format of this discussion does not allow people to follow threads of discussion & the result is like alot of people talking in a room at the same time. Sort of like a mob.

I want to talk to people that don't agree with me. Convincing the already convinced is a bit of a waste of time.

Matt
Comment
21 of 51
August 16, 2006
Come on David, open your eyes and smell the roses,

2000 acres is mathematically the minimum acreage necessary to exploit the largest and, (I don't mean straight down, Iraq; Kuwait; drilling from one countries reserves [in this case 2000acres] and tapping the reserves of another country [the rest of the surrounding area, as far as the rigs will reach]) richest oil in the whole reserve].)

And, how much oil output do you think they will project for their measly 2000 acres? I bet the angular drilling will just about cover the loss they had trying to the pay the government their exorbitant percentage of the 2000 acre output. Of course who's to say just how much that might be.

Do you know where your National Oil Resources are right now? Do you know where they will be in 10 years?

Will they be in the coffers of the wealthiest top 2% of the population?

Will they be rediscovered after the next Ice Age by our replacements?

Doesn't it make any difference ???
Comment
22 of 51
August 16, 2006
Comment 36: Are we a "mob" because we don't agree with you?

You commented earlier that you "don't think 2000 acres of black flies and mosquitoes are relevant at this point."

There are black flies and mosquitoes there, millions of them. And I do think they are relevant. And I know there is much, much more there that is even more relevant.

And to beat a dead horse, we aren't talking about 2000 acres, which is a lie. We are talking about the entire 1.7 million acre Coastal Plain of the Refuge.

Maybe your underline point is correct though. Maybe the Refuge is largely symbolic. But I think it is a symbol this country needs. I think we need to at least symbolically say 'NO' to Oil.
Comment
23 of 51
August 16, 2006
Ok, at the risk of seeming trite, here is my take on ANWR. To me it can be compared, in a minor way, with nuclear energy. Why? Because both drilling in northern Alaska and nuclear energy look like really great ideas, at least on paper. The trouble is that when something goes wrong with nuclear, the downside suddenly looks so bad that everyone is left wondering how they could have been so dumb to think it was a good idea in the first place. With drilling in Arctic Alaska, the downside does not threaten to kill thousands of people, as at Chernobyl, but if something goes wrong, a "pristine" area may be damaged. The question with nuclear was never whether or not something would go wrong, it was when and how often. With Alaskan drilling, there is a downside, but it does not appear to be comparable to the downside of nuclear. The question may be, would we be better off spending our money and time developing renewable energy? It seems to me the question has not been asked.
Comment
24 of 51
August 16, 2006
I just wish we could have an adult dialogue of the issues rather than "looking under the bushes" for all the percieved ghosts and demons trying to subvert the ANWR. I wonder how many of you have actually seen the drilling activity on Prudhoe Bay and the controls that are in place. I doubt many have?

This is why we need to put together a group of focused mature thinkers who can see the big picture using a phased combination of alternate and renewable energy rather than a "mob" who can't see past their short term political axes they need to grind on. Riding bicycles is great sport but it isn't going to do much for transporting products nationwide.
Comment
25 of 51
August 16, 2006
OK People... It seems that we are nearly in unanimous disagreement against this measure of Devin Nunes.

What we all need to do now is send him a letter.

How shall we do that?
Comment
26 of 51
August 16, 2006
Calling the destruction of ANWR "no cost" to the taxpayer highlights the core problem of our outdated economic theory that fails to see destruction of a thing of beauty, as a cost. In all likelihood you live in a house, and on your property there are some large trees. You could cut them all down and sell the lumber. This would leave you economically better off, at no cost, according to the economic theory you espouse.
Comment
27 of 51
August 16, 2006
Your essay hinges on the dismissal of the "opposition" whose "only solution is social engineering by mandating that the American people change their lifestyle." On this weak, unsupported argument you build your case, however I submit that every politician's job is social engineering. Every legislation, bill, law, and for that matter the constitution, is social engineering, designed to modify people's "lifestyle" such that acting in their own best interest co-incides with society's best interest at large. Social engineering can be done by us voluntarily (CAFE standards, Mass transit, gasoline tax) or for us involuntarily (OPEC oil embargos, inevitable peak of world oil production).
Comment
28 of 51
August 16, 2006
In the proposed Bill (H.R. 5890) the 2,000 acres at ANWR allocated to drilling sounds like a petroleum industry "foot in the door" to open up more land at a later date. People forget that the "R" in ANWR stands for refuge and there is NO refuge for wildlife when the drilling crews arrive and start marring the landscape with their roads, pipes and machinery. "Oh look, all the carribou and polar bears are gone now... we can drill on 17.5 million more acres".

Why not slightly increase the tax on gasoline and put the extra income to work developing alternatives to gasoline powered vehicles. The higher cost for gasoline will cause more people to look for smaller, more efficienct vehicles. That, in turn will create an evironment where plug-in hybrid, all-electric, ethanol, butanol and bio-diesel powered vehicles will all flourish.
Comment
29 of 51
August 16, 2006
John ---

You bring up an excellent point & one that we must remember.

Oil is only one side the of the CO2 problem. The other big one is coal.

In fact coal is a bigger problem than oil. China is burning coal like mad... We burn coal like mad. Europe burns lots of coal.

I predict that we'll soon (10 - 20 years) be moving to electric cars. Why? They are cheaper to drive! Half the fuel cost.

So we need to move to clean energy now. If electric cars come... we'll need to produce alot more energy than we do now -- as oil will shift into the grid.

The answer seems to be....

Solar panels on every rooftop. and...

wind turbines everywhere... especially out at sea.
(this looked promising: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16801&ch=biztech )

Cheap solar panels have yet to arrive. Govt. labs / incentives can help R&D efforts. In the meantime... we can be deploying wind offshore like mad. This is where the government must help.

Matt
Comment
30 of 51
August 16, 2006
My girlfriend's father is an Almond farmer in the San Joaquin. Because of a strange new bug infestation in the spring, he is looking at a 50% loss. He may be asking his insurance company for the difference.

A judge ruled yesterday that insurance companies yesterday do not have to pay for the flooding caused by Katrina.

Will we soon see a ruling that says insurance companies do not have to pay for crop damage afflicted by heat waves? and global warming caused bug outbreaks?

Matt
Comment
31 of 51
August 16, 2006
Its true... this forum format kinda sucks. You can't see who is responding to what. We all just end up looking like an angry mob. ;)

I'm surprised Nune is so pro Oil, coming from an Big Ag area. Why is Big Ag (Agriculture) pro oil? Sure, some of their costs are oil to run their big farm equipment.

However, a major cost of farming and a basic necessity is WATER. This last heat wave in California could not have come at a better time. The farmers had plenty of water from the previous snow season.

As it was, farmers are predicting a loss of 5-20% of their crops due to the searing heatwave. HEAT WAVE = LOSS OF CROPS!!!

If this had been a low water, drought year... what might have happened? And yes... when it gets really hot, the only thing farmers can do to prevent the massive loss of their crops is to water them like mad. Same thing with cows -- cows can't sweat & thousands died last heat wave.
Comment
32 of 51
August 16, 2006
Something doesn't add up???

Big oil companies are fighting California's Prop. 87 which taxes oil producers and uses the funds for renewables and oil alternatives, yet support ANWR which taxes the oil produced to use for renewables and oil alternatives. Hmmm?
Comment
33 of 51
August 16, 2006
I do not support this legislation. Technology presently exists for an energy revolution. The only thing missing is the ability to mass produce it. This is how federal government could most effectively help: assist a fledgling renewable energy industry, while withdrawing subsidies and tax breaks from fossil fuel industries. That will not "hurt the economy," though some short-sighted fossil fuel investors may suffer losses.
Comment
34 of 51
August 16, 2006
Drilling in ANWR won't help solve our oil importation problem by nearly enough to warrant the environmental destruction. Take a good look at this figure found on the US DOE website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_90.html

Even the government's (probably optimistic) estimate of ANWR's reserve capacity predicts that when production is at it's peak, there will only be a 3% total impact on the US's crude oil importation rate. Also note, this production peak won't occur until 2024 if we start the process today.

It's time to stop debating ANWR as if drilling there would save us!
Comment
35 of 51
August 16, 2006
In this broad discussion I see confusion in using the terms energy and oil interchageably. Producing "energy" via solar for example doesn't do anything for "oil" demand because oil is used primarily for transportation.

So why not make a portion of the overall solution a new form of transportation called PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT (PRT) whereby solar and other renewables can be used to power transportation directly. No need to pack fuel around in vehicles at all, and that includes batteries and hydrogen.

I'd support my fellow San Joaquin Valley associate, Nunes, if he would pinch off a small portion of the Fed funds to jump start PRT.
Comment
36 of 51
August 16, 2006
Jefe's comment above, asks: "Why is Renewable Energy Access trying to force feed us this proposal?". Far from force feeding, at RenewableEnergyAccess.com we are objectively offering information from as close to the source as we can of what's going on in the world of renewable energy. Lest we bury our heads in the sand, we hope to give our readers the opportunity to be informed -- pro or con -- so that they can make decisions for themselves in the often hardball world of energy.
Comment
37 of 51
August 16, 2006
Supply side solutions should only be implemented once demand side solutions are exhausted. Releasing oil from the ANWR will only enhance the profligate use of this valuable resource.
Comment
38 of 51
August 16, 2006
The first thought that came to me after reading Rep. Nunes was, "It's a bribe!" We have all known these days would be approaching and the time has come for our representatives to do something meaningful and invest in renewables. They don't have to exploit ANWR to do this nor do they have to raid Social Security, Education or the Forest Service as suggested. The money is there - it's the vision and leadership that's missing. He's also wrong in assuming that Americans can't change their lifestyles. Imposing higher CAFE standards, a mandatory national energy conservation policy, a $30 billion investment in renewables per year and creating an Energy Manhattan Project would make a good start.

Rep. Nunes is part of the rubber-stamping, big oil, Bush/Cheney crowd that has done everything to threaten our security with their failed policies and the War in Iraq. Vote the bums out in November. Affect change by Voting Green and adopting a Green Lifestyle.
Comment
39 of 51
August 16, 2006
This website attracts some great people but the comment section here is a waste of time. It would be nice if there was a regular forum we could discuss issues on and if there was this place would grow by leaps & bounds.

To the powers that be here, please think about a regular forum feature as I and others will no longer post because of the current near-worthless format.

Wanna promote this website and renewable energy in general? Get a system that allows those interested in interact!
Comment
40 of 51
August 16, 2006
Two other points: ONE: The article says a vocal minority has kept oil drilling from occurring in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The Author must be referring to a minority in Congress, because, according to an August survey by the LA Times, the majority of Americans oppose drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The MAJORITY of Americans has always opposed Wildlife Refuge drilling. This is democracy in action, at its best, the voice of people being heard... etc. TWO: The 2,000 acres myth is a scam. The first lease sale (and only the first sale) is limited to 2,000 acres of drilling pads, but other infrastructure like airstrips, roads, pipelines and gravel mines don't count against that total. And the those first 2,000 acres of drill pads will not be contiguous.
Comment
41 of 51
August 16, 2006
This is the second article on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in two weeks. It clear from reading through these comments that readers of Renewable Energy Access are not in favor of oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge as a means to get the support of the alternative energies the American people all agree we need. Why is Renewable Energy Access trying to force feed us this proposal?
Comment
42 of 51
August 16, 2006
Matt,

GM & Ford have problems in North America because of legacy costs associated with antiquated health care & pension costs; this has nothing to do with Toyota being a better competitor. Toyota just has a considerable advantage here. GM/Ford build & sell nothing but small cars in other parts of the world because that's what sells there and they build what sells here.

Small cars are still unappealing to the majority of buyers here even with increased fuel costs. Americans are spoiled/feel privileged and that will not be changing anytime soon, we will just do what we have always done and adjust to new technologies that maintain our status quo and keep US as leaders of the world.

Fuel in Europe, yes, they pay a considerable amount for fuel but Great Briton for instance pays 75% of the per gallon cost in taxes. We pay those same taxes in other ways here. The key is, taxes aside, the world is based on oil and economies will crash is their base is radically altered too quickly.
Comment
43 of 51
August 16, 2006
Matt,

"Why should selling lots of wind turbines crash our economy?"

1.5 million wind turbines will produce *all* of the energy we currently consume in the US and I'm all for the idea, but realistically, replacing current energy production has far-reaching macroeconomic consequences that must be addressed.

This isn't about old vs. new money; it's about seamlessly integrating new technology into the current system for the best outcome for all of US. The old money guys could care-less if their next paycheck comes from wind instead of coal but do know it takes decades to completely change the economies revolving around the 6+ billion people that we lead!

Think of the supply chain behind a natural gas/coal/oil fired power plant = the producers, shipping companies, pipelines, the building and maintaining of power plants & their internal equipment etc. involves millions of people that cannot be thrown out of work overnight and/or retrained. This all takes time.
Comment
44 of 51
August 16, 2006
Applaus for Mr. Pease

I do not even drive a car and I don't mind. Never liked the things. Thank Amon Re in the sky, bicycling is so much more sensible, no trouble doing shopping.

What is more important, and that is just a thing Americans will have to learn (Trias Energetica) that the cheapest and most sensible, environmentally straightforward way of changing your "economy" is reducing energy efficiency, prevention of energy use. That's exactly what I have done for many years of my life. I am "self-sufficient" on my electricity use by 70% a year, with ONLY 10 solar panels on my roof. Cheap, sensible, and I have a very comfortable life.

Try it, you will be astonished by the enormous advantages of your new lifestyle!

info@polderpv.nl
Comment
45 of 51
August 16, 2006
David...

Another thing. Why do you think that keeping supply up & hence price low on oil will lead the market to renewable energy?

I was encouraged to read that in this last month Toyota beat out Ford in the number two slot in the US for the first time. Why? Both GM & Ford was greatly down & Toyota was up. Have you visited a GM or Ford lot lately? Nothing but big trucks and cars. Hmm. Price of oil goes up & almost immediately people want smaller cars.

Know how much gasoline costs per gallon in Europe? Try 7 bucks. Is their economy hurting? Why does it take 1.27 US to make one Euro?
Comment
46 of 51
August 16, 2006
Now there is a new opportunity. Clean energy. Everybody will need it. Every single nation on the planet will be forced to use it. Perhaps not immediately.. but eventually.

So.. the way I see it... let the old money guys complain about it and ignore it. They will miss the new market opportunities. New mogols will be made. My money is on the thinkers.

Matt
Comment
47 of 51
August 16, 2006
David -

Why should selling lots of wind turbines crash our economy? Why should selling solar cells by the square mile hurt our economy? We can grow biodiesel to run our big rigs & our farm equipment. Adrian -- I really liked your idea about electric farm equipment.

I've been thinking about this... on one side you've got the old money guys... the guys that made bucks selling oil, coal.. and everything that went with that... cars. airplane rides. trucks. For the most part.. they are in denial that global warming exists. In denial because they are making money from the dirty stuff. On the other hand you've got guys that have made alot of money by thinking. Mostly the new guys on the block --- Internet guys & Hollywood guys.
Comment
48 of 51
August 16, 2006
Of all the money spent in any recent year on military adventures, the United States spends more than every every nation on the face of the planet, combined. I personally think that the U.S. needs a very strong military, BUT......it is time to get the right-wing and christian fundamentalists out of the government. Reducing our military budget by about 75 or 100 billion dollars a year, and putting the money into developing renewable energy, will mean that we still spend more than any other nation on the military, and within a few years, we can be completely energy self-sufficient.
Comment
49 of 51
August 17, 2006
What pleasure to read all the interesting comments. May I suggest in agreeing with Matt and others we encourage a regular forum here--as "Quatloos" has for tax issues? The thread choice format helps organize discussions, and much can be learned from all ("Q." saved my rear from a near disaster as a "tax protester"). Steve, #27: removing oil subsidies is one half--applying incentives for alternatives and standing out of the way of our entreprenuers is the other. David, #18: Speaking of taxes, the health care expense for the domestic car makers is purely a result of misguided federal tax policy. The deductibility of benefits should be removed to favor salary and restore choice for the employees. BTW: I bought a beautiful Civic hybrid yesterday for my wife's birthday, and it made us both feel good. Hurray for the grassroots!!! Don't rely on your gov't.
Comment
50 of 51
August 17, 2006
Hydrogen & Fuel cells are at this point hype -- an attempt by the oil / car industry to move alternative vehicles permanently into the "future":

besides.. Well to Wheel.. fuel cells aren't nearly as efficient as electric cars. (electric is 3x as efficient)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/tesla_reveals_h.html
http://thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html

Benjamin -- I like your idea alot. I will stop referring to it as a "manhatten project"... It does send shivers! The Apollo project is a much more suitable name. Thanks for this.
Comment
51 of 51
August 26, 2006
I'm not naive enough to believe we can stop the drilling in the ANWR. But we'd be far better off keeping our hands off that oil for as long as possible. $3/gal is nothing compared to what's in store for us. Wait until the oil is so tight that we're on national rationing again.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

ClearEnergy Inc. Schüco SolarEdge Technologies SolSolution Krannich Solar Inc. Idaho Department of Commerce Rotork plc
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters