[sailaway21]

However, that is not the case - now is it? We cannot produce enough to meet our needs, we are dependent on a foreign product for our survival (reason enough to get off - no matter the cost), and it IS an exhaustable resource. Drilling is only a stop-gap and not a long term solution.


What evidence do you have for the above statement? We don't even explore many of our most abundant areas for oil since we've banned drilling in them regardless of technology used.

That solar and wind are the future is just wishfull thinking at this point, as it was in the 1970's. Reality is much more likely to be some currently unknown development that offers economical and abundant energy. The fact that we have it already, should the electric car become a reality, in nuclear power goes relatively unremarked. Even the most optimistic thoughts on solar panel development would envision covering, say, the state of Arizona with them to supply Los Angeles alone. And while solar and wind are "renewable" the equipment used for their energy capture is not. Given the amount of equipment necessary to produce any significant amount of energy you're looking at not only a large amount of that equipment but a pretty large replacement cost and maintenance as well. All of which is a long way off, if ever reaching viability.

The allusion to the Iraq war effort is not only not relevant it is disingenuous. If all that was missing from having viable alternative energy was a few trillions of government investmest we'd have surely done so many years ago. In fact, we did so in synfuels research in the 1970's for virtually no return on investment and great cost to the taxpayer. Only one of the reasons Jimmy Carter ranks near the bottom of former presidents, with potential for further slippage. No doubt it must have been a conspiracy of oil companies that put all that research aside. No, it was just cheap oil. Oil that you'll need in any event to make those solar panels and wind turbines. And you'll see relatively cheap oil once again, just like you did throughout the eighties, nineties, and half a decade of the new century. Assuming we drill for it.

I'm hardly against new technology but government mandated and subsidized technology is no substitute for inexpensive power delivered by market forces. If you read those two links I provided you'd see why even now electric is problematic. Start cranking out hundreds of thousands of electric F-150's tomorrow and you're immediately confronted with the fact that you have no way of recharging them. Do you think electruicity grows on trees? Calculate out what a doubling of electrical demand is going to do to our already strapped electrical grid and where the additional watts are going to come from.

In short, Brazil does not translate well to the rest of the world. The ethanol scam is shaping up to be just that. A couple of minor points have eluded the advocates of it. You'll have to cut down most of the forest in the US to plant corn, sugar cane, or switch grass to prioduce enough of it, it takes more energy to produce it than it contains (the electrical shortage again), and you need about twice the gallonage of water to make it as what you produce. And we've got better uses for water than ethanol production. Many states are already strapped for the amounts of fresh water they really desire.

In the meantime, drilling is the only real answer. I happen to think that electricity and battery technologies are the most likely foreseeable replacements and I've no doubt that $4/gallon gas is doing more than any government action to hasten their development. As Dan alludes to, these are all interrelated; Toyota doesn't make a dime on those Prius'es and they're probably loosing money on them. The real question is where did Toyota, a company not noted for making poor business decisions, get all the money to develop the Prius? They didn't get a lot of it by selling Corolla's I can tell you. They got it by selling larger, more value-added trucks and cars, the same way GM manages to do research on such as the Volt concept car.

We can pillory the American consumer all we like for driving big fuel inefficient SUV's but the consumer does so for a reason. We can start producing far more fuel efficient cars tommorow; all of which will get upwards of 50 mpg, if we eliminate vehicle safety standards and eliminate emissions standards. I sthat a trade-off the American consumer wants to make? More importantly, is that a trade-off the American government could sell as worthwhile?

Dan's argument about living in cities is ecologically sound as well as economically. How much are you willing to spend to not live within urban Dallas or Houston? Those will become more and more relevant questions as the cost of energy rises, all energy. (Gas taxes can be so high in Europe because they don't have to drive nearly as much or as far as we in the US do.)

The short answer to all of this is that we can only do what makes sense economically. Currently, that means drilling for oil. Excluding other energy sources would be foolish and uneconmical as well but why would we focus on solar and wind when we already have a safe, reliable, and abundant source of power we do not use, and one that would make your electric car a reality so much sooner? Ignoring nuclear is going to cost us far more than oil currently does. If you want to talk about the costs of the Middle East, don't you find it ironic that one of the largest oil producing country's in the world is proceeding full speed ahead on nuclear power? I'm hardly saying that they have an enlightened energy policy, since they important gasoline, only pointing out the irony.