Bush Promises To ‘Knock Our Socks Off’ At SOTU With 5 Year Old ‘Energy Independence’ Pledge
Bush Promises To ‘Knock Our Socks Off’ At SOTU With 5 Year Old ‘Energy Independence’ Pledge
Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that energy “will be a central theme of President George W. Bush’s state of the union speech this month”:
Al Hubbard, chairman of the National Economic Council, who is co-ordinating White House energy policy, has also raised expectations. In a speech at De Pauw University he predicted “headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence.”
In every one of his previous State of the Union addresses, Bush has promised to push America towards energy independence:
- 2006: Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. [1/31/2006]
- 2005: To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. … I urge Congress to pass legislation that makes America more secure and less dependent on foreign energy. [2/2/2005]
- 2004: Consumers and businesses need reliable supplies of energy to make our economy run — so I urge you to pass legislation to modernize our electricity system, promote conservation, and make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy. [1/20/2004]
- 2003: Our third goal is to promote energy independence for our country, while dramatically improving the environment. …Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. [1/28/2003]
- 2002: Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil. [1/29/2002]
- 2001: We can produce more energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more energy-independent, and we will. [2/27/2001]
Yet the Financial Times also reports today that “U.S. dependence on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries for its oil imports has risen to its highest level in 15 years.” “At more than 52 per cent, Opec’s share of US oil imports is at its highest since 1992.” As of Septmeber 2006, 70 percent of oil consumed in the United States came from foreign sources, up from 58 percent in 2000.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
These are words and words alone. Mr Bush is looking for any safe port to ‘hide’ for a while. His whole life, and the lives of his family and friends are wrapped up in the oil business. There is no way this administration will do anything to help our energy situation. Nothing to see here folks, move on please.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pmUm Georgie, if we’re going to try to be energy independent, we should all conserve energy. We should keep our socks on. Thanks.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 pmContext: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/049
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pmGot switchgrass?
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pmI’m not wearing socks.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pmPebble bed nuclear reactors == unlimited energy without fear of nuclear accidents == ability to use this clean energy to split hydrogen from water to make hydrogen fuel == unlimited energy independance.
THAT should be our Manhatten Project… and until that is complete we can do all the other stuff that is being done like biofuels and the new super efficient solar cells, etc… if only we had spent 500 billion on this Manhatten Project instead of the Bush war.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pmSix years ago, if the will of the American people would have heeded by the NotsoSupreme Court, we already would have had the most comprehensive energy policy since President Carter.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pmSpeaking of which, if Poppy Bush and Saint Ronnie Reagun hadn’t dismantled all of President Carter’s energy reforms, we wouldn’t be in any of this mess today.
And to think that Bush’s imbecilic followers will believe it again.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:15 pmThe “respect the office” crowd will love it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm#7 OxyCon -
Exactly!! And why would the Decider and Darth NOW want to be energy independent? Has Exxon and Halliburton bought into an alternative energy technology all of a sudden?
Or maybe Gale Norton, x-land raper/SecofInterior in her new job as a Shell Oil lobbyist not gotten her fangs deep enough yet. (After all, she has only been in the job a week, and still looking for the Super-size bottle of Astroglide!)
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pmAnd to think that Bush’s imbecilic followers will believe it again.
Comment by VerbalKint
So true. I can already hear ‘dear leaders’ followers proclaiming that this is another example of GWB’s thoughtful and herioic administration. And when it fails, they will simply blame Clinton.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm#8 VerbalKint and ForTruth –
Those low IQers will believe ANYTHING if it is written on the side of a NASCAR car or the back page of Guns and Ammo!
Come on Trolls, where are you????? We can’t hear you!!!!!!
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm“Knock your Socks off” – they’re going to kill Clinton’s cat? Haven’t they tried to do enough damage to the Clinton family! Stop the madness!
OK, is Bush the “education” president, the “war” president, the “uniter” president, the “energy” president, or just an insecure little boy trying to walk in daddy’s footsteps in bare feet? No answer required.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:29 pmJust bottle up all the hot air coming out of the oval office. Poof, no more energy crisis.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:30 pmCome on Trolls, where are you????? We can’t hear you!!!!!!
Comment by upside00
Please don’t, they’ll be here with their vile poison soon enough.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pmagain – it’s always OPPOSITE DAY in bushco world…
they LIE, they CHEAT, they STEAL… it what they do…
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm…
The dear ol’ BBC has an article on their site where Dubious is calling for “Congress to cooperate with the white house” to achieve mostly domestic issues, including balancing the budget by 2012 (you do the math)…….
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmOf all the gall, and now his BS about energy independence…..again…….
Seems like energy independence may be the only option left, now that his oil crusade has so miserably failed.
Oh, and, before you get to far ahead of yourself, Dubious, we are still waiting to hear your Iraq solution.
Bush may get a bump in his numbers if these are empty promises.
That won’t save his legacy.
If his historical biography is his priority he is going to have to propose serious and effective legislation on addressing global warming, not just pander on the issue.
Let’s suspend judgment until we see if he submits actual legislation regarding reducing global warming and what is in it. When his ass was in the fire Scharzeneggar suddenly became pragmatic. Maybe lightening can strike two Republicans on this issue, although I’m very cynical and skeptical.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm#6 Interesting stuff. I’ve just done a tad of research (a tad, mind you)
and found this regarding South African plans…
The spent coated particle fuel can be disposed of in a deep under-ground repository. (Coated particle fuel will maintain its integrity for up to ~ 1 million years in a repository, ensuring that spent fuel radionuclides are contained for extremely long periods of time. The plutonium will have decayed away completely in 250 000 years)
Just a couple of questions.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmWhy do the spend fuel particles need to be isolated if the coating lasts a million years>
and how do they know the coating lasts a million years>?
Mr. Bush, you’re a godd*mned liar, sir.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmCaption:
“Look, Momma, I learnt to turn the page today!”
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmWhy do I get this really sick feeling it has something to do with increasing troops to the Middle East, attacking Iran, supporting Israel in taking over Syria & Lebanon, and trading more blood for oil? Hey, we gotta do something to make sure Pat Robertson’s prediction comes true…
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmPreliminary questions for W as he preps for the State of the Union address…
Are you sure the Union isn’t a State?
What state is the union in?
What’s it’s address? Whose, the state’s or the union’s?
Does the Union have a zip code?
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 pmNot a single thing will happen until congress sets its goals to accomplish this. The president can say all he wants, but quite frankly, nothing happens till congress puts it in motion. We all know the up and coming congress won’t do crap. No new power plants, no new refineries, no exploration, nothing. Hold on to your sock boys, cause all bent over is the way we are going to be.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm“The Manhattan Project resulted in the development of the first nuclear weapons…”
i’d prefer to refer to any program to develop alternative energy to be labelled with a more positive name, such as APOLLO…
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmlike APOLLO ALLIANCE…
Douggy baby – thanks for your straw man. I noticed that you listed nothing but supply side solutions for your concerns. After over a hundred years of oil propelled supply side economics, maybe its time the demand side solutions were tried?
Katy – watch for that Apollo bill in the first 100 days….
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pmKudos Katy, this is the project Jay Inslee has been championing for the last couple of years.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmWhere the hell is my hydrogen filling station???
By energy independence Bush means he’s going to propose drilling for more oil here in the U.S.
The knock your socks off part will be when he does it by executive order without congressional approval, for national security reasons of course.
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:58 pmPerhaps W could begin by depleting the enormous pool of snake oil he’s been selling us.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmPebble bed nuclear reactors == unlimited energy without fear of nuclear accidents == ability to use this clean energy to split hydrogen from water to make hydrogen fuel == unlimited energy independance.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr.
I disagree. Nuclear technology is more expensive than most of other energy conversion systems. Add that the pellet-producing process. And you can use solar conversion systems to produce hydrogen out of water by electrolysis. Nuclear technology is not an option until there is 100% clean and safe way to dispose nuclear waste. But I agree that the fuel of the future will be hydrogen.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmI’m sure BushCo’s version of energy independence is as credible as his
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:04 pmobservation that his United States of America is spreading democracy and freedom around his world.
RU – H2 is a long way off, sorry to report. Can’t go into it much on the treo but recommend you go to the Oil Drum or the Energy Bulletin for more. H2 is a poor storage medium for energy in a nutshell – it can’t replace gasoline unless that changes… remember “soaring like the Hindenburg”?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmKaty Baby,
Nothing is going to happen till congress points in that direction. I simply listed a few items, call them points of intrest. The bottom line is, you cannot refute what I said. No matter what is done, solutions or otherwise, it HAS to be done in congress.
So while you may not like what I have pointed it, it doesn’t change anything. My statement is accurate.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:05 pmI think there are more pressing issues for America than pressurized, rapid sock-removal.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pmNo new power plants, no new refineries, no exploration, nothing.
Comment by Douglas G
Those things you say are not the solution. I suggest you to look at the Energy Plan that Germany has for the 2050 year. Also, you can do for China´s energy plan for 2100. Think big. Dont invade countries for a fuel that has only 50 years of life.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm#34 Terry – The Japanese have a Mazda RX8 that runs on either gas or compressed Hydrogen. Already. In production.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pmNope, its a straw man Douggy. The key sentence is “up and coming congress won’t do crap”. That unsubstatiated assertion anchors your whole argument.
Otherwise correct – congress needs to reset the market to make a more sensible, less Titanic like energy policy…. Katy’s right this is coming.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmTerry – see link
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/newsarticle.html?&start=&showall=&id=MAZ&doc=maz0310282
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmTerry – one more and I’ll shut up.
http://media.ford.com/mazda/article_display.cfm?article_id=20315
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:17 pmRU – that doesn’t answer the question of where the H2 comes from and how it gets into your Mazda….the hard problems for H2 are not yet solved. Think it took over a 100 years to put the oil infrastructure in place…..
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmTerry – Then how are the Japanese approaching it?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:21 pmThis should be the main focus of our energy independence. Harness technology and figure this out. To dismiss this as too hard is, IMHO, foolish.
RU – no need to shut up – this is interesting – thx for the links.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmTerry – Yes, there are good questions to answer, how to mass produce it, but those are the questions we should be investing our resources in. As opposed to, say, occupying middle eastern countries.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:23 pmThanks for the discussion!
RU and Terry:
• One option for obtaining the hydrogen is to use an
on-board reformer to extract it from the gasoline in our
gas tanks. (Reformers break down hydrogen–carbon
bonds to produce a mixed gas from which pure hydrogen is derived.)
• A second option is to use methanol as the hydrogen carrier. Methanol is easier to reform than gasoline and can be produced from natural gas, solid fossil fuels, or renewable biomass resources.
• A third option is to develop a fuel cell that uses methanol directly, eliminating the need for a separate reformer.
• A fourth option is to produce the hydrogen at central locations and then store it on board the vehicle as a gas, as a cryogenic liquid, or in a solid. With this option, the hydrogen could be produced via steam reform ing of natural gas, via pyrolysis or gasification of biomass or fossil fuels, or via electrolysis of water.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmLook at all those glorious sound bites from previous SOFU addresses. Bottom line: you can’t believe ANYTHING this guy says. He’s the biggest bs-er to ever hold the office.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmJuan,
The info about btru & Briseadh na Faire not posting comments anymore? Where?
I’ll check back later. Thanks.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmThanks Juan,
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pmI think the Japanese are using option 4 from what I can divine.
This will be, as Terry points out, a long road.
We need to make the turn and start running…
…for the love of MIKE…
…can we just SKIP the SOTU this year…
…NOTHING Bushiva says is credible…
…even when he speaks his own name…
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 pmThe gas reforming and other options would all be needs to meet an end – which is distributed, local power generation which obviates the use of long distance lines and the use of carbon fuels for transport. If gas reformation is the transition to hydrogen then bring it on. Time to realign the market and get started…
Juan – the Japanese lead the world in solar as well as fuel cells. I see option 4 too – solar cells to generate local H2 for fuel cells. Storage is a bitch though – cryogenic unit in your garage?
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmRU, sorry I have no links just stored PDF´s of technical papers I had to read. More:
It is expected that any large-scale hydrogen distribution system should address the problem of bulk storage, to provide a buffer between production facilities and fluctuations in demand. One can store hydrogen as either a gas or a liquid. The most widely studied options for storing gaseous hydrogen are underground caverns and depleted underground natural gas formations. Although hydrogen is
more prone to leak than most other gases, leakage is shown not to be a problemfor these techniques. For example, town gas (a mixture containing hydrogen) has been stored successfully in a cavern in France, and helium, which is even more leak-prone than hydrogen, has been stored in a depleted
natural gas field near Amarillo, Texas.
The difficulty of onboard storage is the main barrier to
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmfueling vehicles with hydrogen. Because it is a gas, hydrogen at room temperature and pressure takes up about 3000 times more space than an energy equivalent amount of gasoline. This obviously means that compression, liquefaction, or
some other technique is essential for a practical vehicle. So far, storage requirements tend to severely limit range. During the past two decades, several techniques have been studied to overcome this problem. The four main contenders are compressed gas, cryogenic liquid, metal hydride, and carbon
adsorption. Of these, the @rst two appear most promising for the short-term. Metal hydrides are also relatively mature, but require further R&D to be competitive. Carbon adsorption is not yet a mature technique, but it appears very promising
if R&D goals can be met. Glass microspheres and onboard partial oxidation reactors are currently under investigation, but as yet are “insu8ciently characterized for evaluation at the systems levelâ€. It is likely that different techniques will turn out to be most appropriate for different applications (buses are less size-sensitive than cars, for example).
big papa –
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:48 pmAre you suggesting we
Gag the POTUS from spouting the SOTU
and basically telling him to STFU?
RUCerious — if you get the chance, I would recommend watching “Who Killed the Electric Car”… it lists five things that have to happen before hydrogen becomes a viable option… all are very large hurdles that will not happen for at least a couple of decades if ever.
I think solar, wind, and hydroelectric power combined with electric and hybrid technologies is probably a better option than hydrogen.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmThanks GWSC, I will…
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:51 pmbig papa -
Are you suggesting we
Gag the POTUS from spouting the SOTU
and basically telling him to STFU?
Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
i’ll second that! (can’t think of anything clever, just agree!)
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:59 pmThe SOTU will be a great place for both sides of the aisle to show it’s time to take the keys away from this madman. Just imagine silence instead of ovations.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmhb – just imagine rotting vegetables and garbage hurled…
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:18 pmTranscript of Pres. Bush’s next SOTU address:
“Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course, Stay the course………”
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pmLet’s see…
Didn’t Bush also pledge in the 2006 SOTU to wean us off foreign oil in 10 years, only to be told several days later by a couple of his advisors that he wasn’t being literal?
(sorry if this was addressed earlier…haven’t had time to read all the posts)
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:25 pmComment by Lee — January 3, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Don’t you mean…
“New way forward…new way forward…new way forward…new way forward…etc…etc…etc.”
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pmWC you are correct – Bunsen Honeydew came out of his lab to say that Chimpy was speaking figuratively…then he proceeded to the Green Zone to report on how well Iraq was going…
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmRU, I’ll supply the eggs
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm#54
What GWSC said…
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmGerald Gibson Jr. is a moron.
Those pebble fuel reactors are dangerous. Germany had one and it burned to the ground.
No matter what kind of reactor you use, it generates massive amounts of nuclear waste. And we still haven’t figured out where to put it.
Yucca Flats isn’t going to work, either.
You pro-nuke people are a bunch of dumbass Repukes.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmOh boy, I can hardly wait. George Bush is about to give more tax breaks to the oil companies so they can make even more money.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm#34 Terry – The Japanese have a Mazda RX8 that runs on either gas or compressed Hydrogen. Already. In production.
Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
What about the turbine-powered cars from the ’50s and ’60s that could run on diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, vegetable oil, and, reportedly, tequila? With today’s technology, seems this would be a viable option.
It’s also relatively inexpensive to convert a diesel engine to run on vegetable oil. There’s a guy in my town who purchased a conversion kit for $1500 off the Internet and gets his fuel from a local Japanese restaurant (for free!) to run his VW Rabbit truck.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmWho Killed The Electric Car is an excellent movie and it shows that Corporate America and the Chimpy Regime are NOT interested in alternative energy.
Nuclear is not the solution. Hydrogen is not the solution.
We could all be driving flexible fuel hybrids by now and cutting our foreign oil use down to nothing. But big business does not want that to happen.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmAnd neither does our big oil preznit.
Lots of people are making used fry grease into diesel now. One of our famous local restauranteurs has been doing it for over a decade. She drives a Mercedes diesel fueled from the fry grease from her restaurant.
On the Internet you can get plans to make your own biodiesel refinery out of an old 40 gallon water heater. Apparently it is quite easy to use Drano to seperate vegetable oil into biodiesel and glycerine.
We also now have a biodiesel station where you can buy 20% biodiesel or 100%, although it is a bit more expensive than regular diesel.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:44 pmand how do they know the coating lasts a million years>?
Comment by RUCerious
Math. They look at how much decay happens in less time and then multiply it out by the years. Isolate them because of all kinds of reasons… put them where terrorists can not get their hands on them… put them so far away under ground that even if an earthquake happens in the area and cracks some of them up they are still way underground …etc…
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmWC- all well and good but just how many Japanese restaurants are there? Cost to produce agricultural subs for oil-based fuel doesn’t scale so that it can more than replace a fraction of today’s use. Useful but no panacea.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pmRU – H2 is a long way off, sorry to report. Can’t go into it much on the treo but recommend you go to the Oil Drum or the Energy Bulletin for more. H2 is a poor storage medium for energy in a nutshell – it can’t replace gasoline unless that changes… remember “soaring like the Hindenburgâ€?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
There have been many break throughs on this issue. A team in england made very time beads that each holds a small drop of H2 and when a tank is split open it does not turn into a pool of explosive liquid. There is also a laptop coming out this year that will run for 30 days on a single H2 charge.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pmComment by Tom3 — January 3, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
The biggest “problem” with electric cars as I understand it was their limited range, a factor that was complicated in part or in whole, IMO, by the long recharge time.
However…I believe it is Toshiba who recently created a rechargeable battery that will recharge to something like 95% of its capacity in about a minute. The concern with range limitations would be all but solved.
What I haven’t figured out is why car makers haven’t paired an electric car with a small 2 or 3 cylinder engine to recharge the batteries on the run (and not be part of a hybrid system)? With a 10 or 12 gallon gas tank, you could drive for months without having to fill up. Couple that with Toshiba’s batteries, and many folks would fill up 2 or 3 times per year. Oh wait…I can answer that with two words: “Oil companies.”
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:52 pmBush’s energy plan is to bottle Rove’s farts.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:54 pmWe can argue for decades about the problems or we can spend a few years seeking solutions. American ingenuity, when there is inspired leadership, can succeed. JFK challenged us to go to the moon in 10 years and we had no real clue on how and had a host of problems to overcome. But we did and the spin off technology has been incredible. The same could happen with alternative fuels, if we had an inspired leader and money. Bush can’t give either.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmGermany had one and it burned to the ground.
Comment by Tom3
And why didnt we hear about the huge nuclear catastrophe? Because there wasnt one. Because pebble bed reactors dont melt down. Even if every human tech just walked away and never came back the thing would just go to its natural state of cooling down. Storing LIQUID nuclear waste is a problem..storing small pebbles in solid state is easy to dispose of without worry that it will leak out. Anti-Nuclear zealots are crazy. Nuclear is SCIENCE not the devil. What do you think will be powering humanities space ships? solar? Unlimited fuel…is a gift of science that only needs proper engineering… and pebble bed reactors are just that. The type of reactors that America uses is dangerous because without constant perfect conditions they start going nuclear. Pebble bed default mode is to not get hot…they have to do something to make it get hot…big difference.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pmPLC – the first Apollo Project ‘got off the ground’ because it channeled resources into the ‘military industrial’ complex – politically easier than Inslee and Cantwell’s New Apollo Project which is opposed by Big Oil and Big Car as it is against their interests…
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmWC, go watch Who Killed The Electric Car and get back to me.
The range of electric cars isn’t a problem for 90% of drivers. That’s in the movie.
The charging isn’t a problem. Again, see the movie. And the batteries are improving all the time.
General Motors and the other automakers took back their electric cars from drivers who were begging to buy them outright. The cars were crushed.
Why would an automaker refuse to sell a car to buyers and then crushi it? Because they worked, and they upset the traditional partnership of Big Oil and the Big Three.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm…American ingenuity…JFK challenged us to go to the moon in 10 years…The same could happen with alternative fuels…
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — January 3, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
hence the appropriately names APOLLO ALLIANCE…
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmwhich i tried to link to (#26) again, and the link doesn’t work… why???
apolloalliance.org…
My socks have been knocked off.
So now I have cold feet. I need to turn up the thermostat.
What actually knocks my socks off is the total lack of follow-through. The promises were empty. Why expect anything different this year? In a leadership vacuum one is left with nothing but hot air. And Bush has plenty of hot air but nothing to show for it.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pmPLC – the first Apollo Project ‘got off the ground’ because it channeled resources into the ‘military industrial’ complex – politically easier than Inslee and Cantwell’s New Apollo Project which is opposed by Big Oil and Big Car as it is against their interests…
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 3, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
uhhh… oh yea… *whoosh* (air rushing from balloon)…
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm:-(
WC- all well and good but just how many Japanese restaurants are there? Cost to produce agricultural subs for oil-based fuel doesn’t scale so that it can more than replace a fraction of today’s use. Useful but no panacea.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 3, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
More than you might think. From Wikipedia:
OK…so it’s only 1% (based on 6 year old data). But it’s a start. And why not focus on producing E50 fuel in the near-term instead of E85? Set a goal over the next 10 years to eliminate 50% of our dependence on foreign oil, and completely eliminate it in 20 years.
We’ve got technology that is yet to be created that likely will help with our goals. Just look at what we’ve accomplished in our recent history:
We sent men to the moon with less computing power than today’s hand-held calculators. In 1976 the Chevy Corvette’s engine put out about 200 horsepower and got maybe 16 mpg on the highway. In 2006 it puts out 400 horsepower and gets 28 mpg highway; 500 horsepower and 26 mpg if you opt for the Z06 model. In 1984 I owned a 1981 Toyota Tercel with a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder engine rated at 70 horsepower and I got a personal best of 28 mpg on the highway. In 1998 I purchased a Dodge Neon with a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder rated at 150 HP and personally obtained 39 mpg on the highway. In 1903 the Wright Flyer became the first powered, heavier-than-air machine to achieve controlled, sustained flight with a pilot aboard. 77 short years later we flew the space shuttle, a reusable space freighter based on the design and principles proven by the Wright Brothers.
How was this performed? Technology. I’d say in the last 30 years we’ve had more technological breakthroughs and advancements than we had from 1906 to 1976 combined. We can do the same with energy independence. We just need the commitment of the American people and an honest government; what we don’t need is idiots like George Bush leading the way.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmCall me straw man all you want, but time will tell. I HOPE that I am wrong, but lookiing at the totality of the people who are moving into power, they are going to be more concerned with pork/pet project/going after bush/crap/ then doing anything of use. I hope I am wrong, but based on their previous actions, probably not.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pmA few weeks ago, C-SPAN showed a conference of people from the petroleum industry. To a man, they all repeated the same thing for the benefit of the national audience “oil is here to stay” “no other energy source can provide what oil provides” We will need x new power plants ” etc, etc.
These are the people who control what George Bush says about energy. He is their front man to distract the public while they go about their normal rape and pillage behavior.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmPebble bed default mode is to not get hot…they have to do something to make it get hot…big difference.
Comment by Gerald Gibson Jr
I have nothing against nuclear technology. I think it is high quality science and engineering. But it is too expensive. How many III World countries can afford the technology? Now, imagine you want to build one of them but you are against some G8 policies, they would say you want to build a nuclear weapon and then you are out. Besides, you just can get rid of the waste in a safe way. Containment is all you have, but can you assure those pebbles will never leak out on any circumstance (an explosion, chemical activity, etc)? Nuclear fission technology was a nice experiment but it didnt work as a safe, viable, and friendly energy conversion system. Now, Im sure american and european labs want to develop fusion nuclear technology and promote it as the panacea. Again, it wont, cuz its too expensive and scientists still cant make a self-sustained fusion reaction. Thats for the power plants. Now, what about the moving engines?
I think hydrogen is next.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:28 pm#83
Funny, that seems to me to be a very good description of Republican behavior, sans Bush-bashing.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmTerryTheTurtle
Very true and the space program was also part of the anti-Communism political landscape. But, for the American people who gave their support, I think it was much more. It was a grand venture, a call to something big, a trust in America. I still believe that that same gung-ho spirit can be tapped, even with the objections of Big Oil and Big Car. The old “Big” has always resisted the new “little” but if there is a political will and money put out there, the researchers will come. Big Oil and Big Car got nothing on Big Citizen, when the grassroots are ready to push the political will. I am pessimistic in that I don’t think we have a choice and I’m an optimist in that I think America can succeed with the right leadership.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 pmDoug – Pelosi plans on creating a fund for alternative energy techology in the first 100 hours of the 110th congress. That’s stage one of the Inslee proposal.
Katy – nothings easy. Vote with your pocket book. Tell Big Oil and Big Car you want change.
WC – it all helps I agree. But beware ethanol. It is net energy negative (i have the source for that somewhere) and imho it plays to ADM and General Mills – different drug, different pushers, same result.
Otherwise I am in broad agreement but it will take a difficult and painful realignment of the market for how we make electricity and how we manage transportation.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:34 pmComment by Tom3 — January 3, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
I’ll watch it first chance I get. I remember reading about the owners who wanted to buy the GM electric cars (wasn’t it the EV-1?). Wasn’t Ed Begley one of them? I agree that it was a shame GM wouldn’t sell them. And a bigger shame that they didn’t continue improving the technology.
(Speaking of Ed, did you see the premier of his show on HGTV New Year’s Day? Pretty neat!)
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pmToo little too late too much hot air . . .
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pmPLC – Big Citizen didn’t stop Chimpy, I’m sorry to say. Democracies suck at the painful stuff unless they are ‘pearl harbored’. Even centrally planned China has higher mileage standards. We had Japan earlier – ever think about how Japan is the only major industrial country to retain over 70 percent of its forests..? Somewhat related…
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pmWC – it all helps I agree. But beware ethanol. It is net energy negative (i have the source for that somewhere) and imho it plays to ADM and General Mills – different drug, different pushers, same result.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 3, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
A different take from the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (just a quick source I had access to) says it is not energy negative.
From e85fuel.com:
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Terry
“Big Citizen didn’t stop Chimpy” – EXACTLY what the problem is. In a democracy, we get the government and society we seek and, therefore, deserve. Maybe we’ve learned from our self-induced “Neocon Pearl Harbor”. I hope the Democratic leaders speak out, now and loud. We may be in a critical, now or never time period.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmComment by WC
Would biofuels help to stop greenhouse gas release? No. So, again…not a whole solution.
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmWC – your source seems stronger than mine on first glance – I yield for now on energy deficit. I was over on Oil Drum and found the R-Squared Energy Blog Response to Dan Rather’s 60mins on Ethanol. R-Squared has the net negative coming from farming practice using 8 gallons gas for 10 of ethanol and ethanol only 70pct as calorific.
Ok now factor in that all the US corn acreage can produce 15pct of todays gasoline needs, ethanol is bad for the air, takes a lot of water to make and using corn will push up food prices…. still no panacea. When I’m off my treo ill do better responding.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pmADM and Cargill, not General Mills….what about those farm subsidies boys?
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:19 pmComment by TerrytheTurtle — January 3, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
One thing I think that is agreeable is that representatives/supporters of Big Oil will always say there’s a net energy deficit, and representatives/supporters of ethanol will always say there’s a net energy surplus. At least for the near future. You and I are left in the middle trying to sort it all out.
One other tidbit before I leave for home…
Late last summer (2005) NBC News reporter Kerry Sanders took a 2 day road trip down the East Coast to check gas prices. Along the way he ran across a station selling E85 for $2.35 a gallon. This was a time when ethanol-free gas was going for about $2.75/gal.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:30 pmDiarrhea of the Mouth=SOTU
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:48 pmWould biofuels help to stop greenhouse gas release? No. So, again…not a whole solution.
Comment by Juan C — January 3, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
No, but many cars in recent years have been classified as ultra low emission vehicles (ULEV) or SULEV (super-). As for carbon dioxide, I found several sources that indicate when biofuels are burned, they release the carbon dioxide that the plants took in when growing. Thus no new amounts of carbon dioxide are released, unlike fossil fuels. I also read that mixing biofuels with fossil fuels reduces the amount of pollutants produced if the fossil fuels were burned alone.
January 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmThe decider’s way to energy indepedence is to take the oil fields of Iraq, followed by Iran. If Bush tries to deny it, he’s lying-his lips are moving.
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 pmThat’s precious – Ol’Dubbie & pals know that their wards, “the amurkun people” have so short a memory that all those other SOTU handjobs will be long forgotten when this one is trotted out. The amnesiacs in the press will do no better a job, and fail to review even last year’s speech as a refresher. Come speechifyin’ night, the public will just kick back and take that handy, and believe it’s the first one they ever got. Backstage, Tony and Karl will alternate between picking out the ugliest and the most doable women in the audience, and feel really cool.
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:06 pmLame Duck Puppet Fake President Bush is a liar and a thief.
The magnitude of Mr. Bush and his father’s sordid subversion of the American governmental process is beyond measure. Given the degeneration of laws, systems, processes, the destruction of rights, entire departments, agencies, and loss of highly-qualified and dedicated personnel who guided the ‘leading body’ without rancor or prejudice …
The total destruction of fair and balanced dissemination of information to the public! This alone is reprehensible …
His and his family’s blatant conflict of interest within the oil industry and their thirst for more money with complete contempt for the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH (not only America) is beyond disgust, beyond corporate theft.
G.W. Bush has created a future where we will all have to work hard just to reach a place where each person’s basic survival needs have been met. (and yeah, it’s gonna cost some money, so NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!)
- Health Care (pharms own the government right now, gotta go, gotta go right now!)
- Housing (deteriorated … Katrina folks included)
- Jobs (Walmart wont make a secure future)
- Childcare (Leave them behind, trickle down, it’s all wrong)
- Water (it still pisses me off that we pay for *pure*water, it’s just dumb. Where are we? Dune?)
- Environment (Her blue body and everything we know)
- Energy (buuaahhahahahahhahha!!! Yah, open up friggin’ Alaska?!?! – for who?)
- Transportation (Army of Engineers? hahah. Emissions Testing?hhahah SUV’s & Humvees – yippeee!)
- Publications
- Communications
- WTO
… basta. I’ve vented, thanks
January 3rd, 2007 at 8:32 pmMANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R3
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.”
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING†(the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology†with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-3-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs)the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:09 am[...] Bush energy talk and energy policy… Go figure. [...]
January 4th, 2007 at 9:19 pmI disagree. Nuclear technology is more expensive than most of other energy conversion systems. Add that the pellet-producing process. And you can use solar conversion systems to produce hydrogen out of water by electrolysis. Nuclear technology is not an option until there is 100% clean and safe way to dispose nuclear waste. But I agree that the fuel of the future will be hydrogen.
Comment by Juan C — January 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Here’s the funny think about nuclear waste, though, Juan. It takes up an incredibly small amount of space, and so long as it is stored properly so that radiation is contained (in leaded concrete bunkers, with Japanese-skyscraper-style motion so that they are all but impervious to earthquakes and the like), the risk is incredibly small compared to other forms of comparable energy providers. That much is known.
What we don’t know is what to do with it beyond that. BUT, think about it with this in mind: Do you think we can find a legitimate technological use for such extremely rare substances? Especially considering that we have a large timeframe with which to work until there it becomes dangerous?
What’s more, by the time it becomes a problem (hundreds, perhaps thousands of years from now, as opposed to the vastly closer fossil fuel dilemma), we could very easily be exploring space, and could store it on a desolate moon or asteroid. That’s only if we haven’t found another use for it by then. I highly doubt that will be the case at our current rate of progress. We could “merely” discover how to make it inert with efficiency and safety. Or the “waste” could become a source of energy or raw material for some other important industrial application. Perhaps space travel itself.
In the short term, nuclear power would give the whole world a huge energy supply until another alternative is found. With how safe it has become over the decades since it’s inception, nuclear power has serious potential to relieve the world of the wars for energy that have so dominated the international scene for so very, very long.
And once we discover the the next great source of energy, such as fusion power, or whatever completely unknown and unforeseen sources of energy lie in our future, nuclear power, like fossil fuels, can be discarded like yesterday’s news.
All of that without even counting the supplementation of such a fuel source with solar power, wind power, hydro power, etc. Humanity was bamboozled into giving up nuclear power by the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by the industries threatened by it. Wonder which industries? Hmmmm.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:05 amIncidentally, I am not proposing nuclear as an even near-permanent solution. But ~3 cubic meters of waste per plant per year? Even with the tricky nature of storing it (underground, surrounded by water, away from urban areas and wildlife area, etc), that is miniscule compared to the sheer amount of CRAP fossil fuel dumps into the environment, it seems to be an overall better use of our resources.
Nuclear power must be thought of as a cleaner stepping stone between fossil fuels and the future, clean, renewable energy sources that will replace both (I’m looking at you, fusion, solar, hydro, etc).
January 10th, 2007 at 2:17 am[...] FACT — DESPITE PAST RHETORIC, FOREIGN OIL DEPENDENCE HAS INCREASED: President Bush has pledged to reduce our energy dependence in every State of the Union he has delivered since taking office. At the same time, the United States has become increasingly dependent on foreign oil, from 58 percent of oil consumed in the U.S. in 2000 to 70 percent in September 2006. U.S. dependence on OPEC nations for oil imports “has risen to its highest level in 15 years.” By focusing on expanding domestic exploration, he perpetuates our dependence on oil. [ThinkProgress, 1/3/07; Department of Energy; Financial Times, 1/2/07] [...]
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:27 pm[...] Up By Screwy Hoolie “Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that energy “will be a central theme of President George [...]
March 15th, 2007 at 11:35 pm[...] Up By Screwy Hoolie “Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that energy “will be a central theme of President George [...]
March 31st, 2007 at 8:41 pm