fordfasterr

check out the video from msnbc

https://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...=News_Politics


sounds like he's finally been getting some new information ! LOL

Roody

I guess the State of the Union speech turned us all into Republicans overnight.

Platy

Obviously, someone in Bush's administration felt it was necessary to mention the oil dependency problem. Why?

Any meaningful solutions would take them to places they really don't want to go. Jimmy Carter was last seen leading an expedition to explore those places and he never returned.

budster

He said the solution was technology. In other words, the solution will necessarily involve stuff large corporations can make money from. Like biofuels.

At least he acknowledged there's a problem....

randya

No new fuel economy standards proposed, no mention of other modes of transportation (rail, bicycle, etc.).

fordfasterr

He suggested switching to clean burning coal and a move to ethanol fuel from grass or something . lol

budster

You forgot nuke-u-lur.

SteveFox

what about hemp? you can make ethanol from that, plus it has other uses that would help decrease pollution, such as making paper, which is cleaner because it doesnt use the chemicals that paper made of wood uses. and unlike trees, you can grow another crop after the last one was harvested, which means youll never run out. and you can make textiles and clothes form it, which is better than cotton cause cotton uses 1/4th of the fertilizers and pesticides and other chemicals to grow where hemp uses barely any, and hemp fabric is stronger and more durable than cotton. and you can make food out of the oil, which, if used in some third world countries could potentially stave off famine. you can make rope too, making it easier to bring back the death penalty by hanging, getting criminals off the streets and freeing up room in prisons, which could be used as schools to educate the youth...that one was a joke, by the way...
but in the end, that wont happen...cause hemp is illeagal to grow, even the ones that have a low TCH level and cant be used as a drug...its all illegal...

steve

Riderfan_lee

Not in Canada it isn't illegal. I see fields of hemp every now and then. Also, trees are a renewable resource when managed properly but are more suited to poorer land. Hemp requires significant moisture to be profitable to grow but does have a lot of potential as a textile crop.

BroMax

Yea, a real one.

SteveFox

also, in the right conditions, hemp has 3 growing seasons a year, so instead of waiting 75 years to harvest trees again, you can just grow more. ya, in canada you can grow it, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops, and you have to get everything tested which costs per speices growing and per feild its growing in, which can get expensive...the government made it hard to grow legally, so as to deter people from doing it, often denying applications to grow it altogether. they dont make it easy to get on its feet.

steve

some_guy282

I heard somewhere that he'll be giving another speech solely dedicated to energy in another month or so? If that's true, maybe he was just laying the groundwork in the state of the union for more things he'll talk about later. I wont hold my breath though. If the recent past is any indicator (like last year's energy bill) we wont be seeing any real solutions from this government.

The things he proposed last night at best will reduce imports in the long very little. Zero emission coal plants? Do those even exist with current technology? Ethanol from switchgrass (as opposed to corn, which is a complete joke) might make a small contribution to our energy needs, but it's hardly a solution to the problem.

Glad he mentioned the nook U lar power though. Needing nuclear energy is a bitter pill the American public is going to have to swallow.

pedex

The dates mentioned were prophetic LOL, hmm, funny coincidence on the goal for mid east independence from oil..........just happens to coincide with ME oil depletion, imagine that. All OPEC reserves are likely overstated by double, Kuwait just admitted their BS story, the others will follow, leaving Iran and Russia as sole owners of the last big viable cheap oil reserves on the planet.

well, ethanol, methanol, and synthetic fuel from coal are going to be likely replacements, some bio-fuel as well, but still no matter what this country is going to have to stop using about 25-50% of current energy usage and get used to that idea

Companies like ADM and Cargill arent going to stand by idly and let this happen.

Grassroots and bypassing the unethical and profit motivated publicly held companies will be what works, but it wont even be much of a dent in current consumption for decades.

sidenote,some of you may have noticed sugar prices climbing lately---like from $250/ton to $470/ton or so, this is what happens when SA countries have switched to ethanol bigtime and they supply cane sugar to the US.......there are far reaching and costly consequences to the US having no foresight for about a century when it comes to energy. Effects like this will quickly become felt following the rise in energy prices, call it the second wave or aftershocks. We saw 25-40% increases in energy during 2005, in 2006 we can expect more of the same, but other goods will be showing the effects as well, its been long enough for the changes to make their way thru the system now.

swwhite

I think there is a sense of humor in the universe, and that technology already HAS solved the problem, but humans have turned their backs on the solution. The solution is...the bicycle.

SteveFox

here here...ill drink to that...long live the bicycle

steve

worker4youth

e=mc^2. Your cup of coffee in the morning has enough energy to blow up new york city.

SteveFox

kaboom!

steve

Chris L

I hear his popularity has been taking a beating lately. Sounds like he's just trying to garner support from a different section of the community before the 2006 election. Basically, as far as "ending oil dependence" goes, I'll believe it when I see it.

Evidently he quoted some figures on how much they're planning to spend on research into cheaper fuels, although I wasn't paying much attention at the time. I'd be interested to find out how that figure compares to what they've already spent trying to defend their oil supply in Iraq. I think that comparison would give a more accurate indication of where his preferences lie.

oldguy52

I wonder ..... how do you propose to produce a large enough supply of these "solutions" to make a meaningful difference IF some large company(s) don't get involved.

Secondly, don't you make a profit everyday??? What'd you buy your bike with?

Bet your ROI on your at your job is a heck of a lot better than most corporations.

chocula

To follow the president's analogy, if we are addicted to oil, then oil is a drug. That makes the president a former drug dealer.

some_guy282

https://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...hington_nation


Why am I not surprised?

budster

Hey, I'm a capitalist from the word 'go.' Of course there's a role for technology in solving our 'oil addiction,' and many technologies will be practical only through the efforts of large corporations. But the solution which would make the most difference -- conservation -- was not mentioned once, or even alluded to.

I think, as with most political solutions, the Administration wants very much to appear to be doing something, while at the same time throwing as much money/pork to their supporters as possible.

Dahon.Steve

Good one.

I heard over the radio that oil prices may break over $100.00 USD this summer! The President is trying to ward off any more damage by discussing this phantom energy plan that will not take into effect for another 19 years! He's only has another 3 years left. Come on folks! The driving season is just around the corner and we are looking are record breaking fuel prices.

The Energy bill came and went and there was nothing in it but tax breaks for oil companies to search for more discoveries. In fact, if the President was really serious, his Energy bill should have outlined all those issues in his speach but it's too late now. For example, it did not force the automakers to build fuel efficient cars or any form of energy conservation. Instead, oil refineries are now allowed to build with less enviromental control. This is not a short or long term energy plan.

Roody

I've noticed that the big oil companies are running ads in the "highbrow" magazines about the need to end our dependence on petroleum. That makes it appear that Bush is toeing the company line as always.

Obviously there are smart analysts and planners working for these companies. I think they've read the writing on the wall (finally) and realize that cheap oil's days are numbered. They want to position themselves as "energy companies" to cash in on alternative sources. And yes, oldguy, I suppose that it will take big corporations to finance big changes. At least that's one scenario.

Of course, often in history it has been newer upstart companies that cash in on new technologies. (GM and Ford both come to mind in early auto days.) This might be a golden opportunity for venture capitalists.

oldguy52

Yep, Couldn't agree more. The thing I don't understand about this though is why do we have to be told by the President that this would be the right thing to do? Seems to me that if we are smart enough to critique him, we ought to be smart enough to figure the conservation thing out on our own. Not pointing at you when I say this though 'Course the price is probably gonna force this pretty quick anyway, wouldn't you agree??

Pork ?.?.?.?. Seems like there's Plenty of that coming from no matter where you look. Everybody in Congress writes into and/or has input into the bills that pass, not just the majority. That's how their votes get bought and sold on any particular piece of legislation. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours", eh.