It is ridiculous that our elected officials in our federal government keep talking about "reducing America's dependence on foreign oil". We have had this oil problem since 1973. Why is it that none of our elected officials have had enough vision to help move America (and the world) past this crisis?
The answer to many of our problems can be found if we use a little of one of our greatest assets, which is good old American Ingenuity. A monopoly always drives up prices, and lowers the level of service. Oil, also known as fossil fuels, currently has a (near) monopoly on our fuel and heating concerns. Why? Because we as Americans have allowed it to become such a monster. But we can put an end to that, and greatly change the world for the better. Abandon the use of fossil fuels completely.
We can create an alternative, or even the threat of an alternative, to oil, both foreign and domestic. We can take our most abundant resource, which is sea water, and convert it to fuel, for both heating and propulsion. Imagine using aircraft fuel and fuel for cars, cheaply generated from the waters of our oceans. What would happen to the cost of fossil fuels then? How would that help our economy? How many new jobs for Americans would that create, both directly and indirectly? How rich would that person become if they were the first to successfully develop the conversion process? What sort of boost would it be to our economy if America developed such cheap and abundant energy? Since America could go to the Moon in less than ten years, then an American inventor or chemist can develop a process to convert sea water to a potent fuel in less than four years, making it available to American industry.
Herman Cummings PO Box 1745 Fortson GA, 31808 ephraim7@aol.com
http://hometown.aol.com/ephraim7/index.html
Author of the book, "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!"
Actually Jimmy Carter did have the foresight. He even had solar panels installed on the White House, but the first thing Reagan did was to have them removed.
No, we the people have not allowed this dependency on oil to happen. It has been forced upon us by the oil industry as well as those elected officials who have been “purchased” by the oil industry. There have been significant options invented in recent history only to have been purchased by the oil industry in order to keep them from. Hitler fought a war on synthetic fuel nearly 70 years ago! Do you mean we could not have refined that process in the years since? We ran a vehicle around the moon some 50 years ago that was not driven by gasoline. Do you mean to tell me that process could not have been enhanced in the years since?
Presently, automobiles are manufactured that get better mileage than those sold in the United States. Why are they not available here?
No, when it comes to devising methods to improve things man is pretty darn good. The problem is the all-mighty dollar continues to trump man's ingenuity.
Presently, the foresight of our administration is to drill drill drill..... ouch!
by
Dennis Kaiser (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 229 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 7:58:53 AM
would, indeed, modify the price of petroleum. However, if it is only a ploy to reduce the price followed by a return to petroleum use, it will fail in the long term, as it has, in the past. Once a committment is made to embark on the path of replacing petroleum with alternatives, there is no turning back.
In addition, with our vast reliance on petroleum fuels for so many uses, we must expect a move to alternatives to be a gradual transition rather than an overnight change by acclaim.
The benefits to society of starting down this path are inarguable, ranging from removing our economy from the fears of participating in the Peak Oil Sweepstakes, to guaranteeing energy supplies far into the future, to reserving petroleum supplies for higher value uses such as pharmeceuticals, plastics and lubricants.
Let's go.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 9:17:16 AM
Correct, the switch to alternatives does encompass a vast spectrum of areas. However, to not do anything because of the many obstacles makes about the same logical sense as beginning drilling now to drop the immediate cost of oil. Once more oil has been obtained and it remains as the sole energy source why would the price drop? Supply and demand? Nay, supply is too easily manipulated as we have seen time and again. Conservation? Nay, remember when Nixon asked Americans to conserve on their usage of electricity, and we did only to see utility companies increase their rates in order to "meet their on-going costs."
Why not begin in two areas - automotive and electricity? That would be a good start and would greatly reduce the dependency we have on foreign oil, maybe even to the point of being able to supply our needs internally. Who knows until we try?
by
Dennis Kaiser (14 articles, 0 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 229 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 12:18:37 PM
These are, indeed, the main areas to concentrate on.
T. Boone Pickens, in his proposal for weaning away from petroleum motor fuels advocates the use of natural gas as a bridge fuel to the use of electricity or hydrogen as the standard motor fuel. Electricity has also been proposed in this regard.
Pickens advocates wind generated electricity, but to provide for all of our needs, we must employ the whole basket of technologies available. That would be wind, photovoltaics, solar concentration technologies, both as a boost to photovoltaics and as steam generators to drive turbines. Other generating technologies would include hydroelectric, including generating equipment that can be used in tidal basins and in streams without dams and geothermal generation.
It's not like we don't have options, we need only the motivation and investment, and if petroleum scarcity can't motivate us to make the investment, we're lost.
Of course our oil boys, Dubya and his pet criminal Cheney, are complicating the requirement for investment funds by bankrupting the nation as they demonstrate what imbeciles they are. Maybe we're overlooking an option by not putting these jerks and their pals in harness to generate electricity.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1172 comments)
on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 3:41:22 PM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
