. Bush promised more federal energy research, primarily into technologies that might reduce America's fossil fuel dependence years from now. But he rejected the common-sense measures that could bring immediate improvements and maximize the long-term benefits of the new research. The Bush plan did contain environmentally friendly measures that Democrats have ignored in their shrill denunciations of it...But they are not sufficient â€" not even close...
Relying on the market alone to wean America from oil is like trying to deliver an international letter by dropping it in the ocean, hoping the tide will carry it to the correct address. Washington needs to establish a clear direction, using all the tools at its disposal, from research subsidies to federal procurement and regulatory mandates."
Comments
Canada's oil
The whole deal with the oil mystifies me. I saw a special on TV about a week ago on oil in Canada. In Alberta, Ft. McHenry, the is more oil, in the sand above ground than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. It is scooped up with front-end loaders, put into the world's ;argest dump trucks (each load contains $10,000 of refined oil), processed and produces the highest quality oil. Canada is a friendly country; you know what oil is there (it's not hidden under ground...maybe there, maybe not). The problem is workers. They need 100,000 workers to produce the maximum amount of oil. Pay is in the range of $100k-200k for a low level unskilled worker. The location is in the middle of nowhere, but they built an airstrip to give the employees a break every month in civilization. Here is a link to an article released today: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=4e35cd3a-78b7-49e0...
Check it out and tell me why we need "alternative energy sources". The problem with Bush's recent statements about developing from wood chips and grass is that there is no infrastructure to deliver it. See any pure ethanol "gas" stations lately; hydrogen fueling stations. Hell, finding diesel except at a truck stop is almost impossible.
The answer lies in Canada.
It's not that simple.
Is it really that simple? I suggest you haven't really done your homework, JimG.
Extracting the oil fom the oil sands is still tremendously expensive (although it gets more attractive the higher world oil prices climb), not to mention horrifically destructive to the environment. Regard: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUP... (is it cool to put outside links on this board? my apologies if not).
Read it. And then think about what that barrol of oil really costs.
Another good reason we should tear up the NAFTA.
Net Energy of Oil Sands
It takes a lot of energy to produce oil from oil sands, digging up the sand and processing it. This means:
1. The net energy in Canada's oil sands is less than the total energy. (Net energy = total energy - energy needed to produce gasoline from oil sands)
2. Gasoline from oil sands has a much worse effect on global warming than conventional gasoline. (CO2 from gasoline made from oil sands = CO2 from the automobile tail pipe + CO2 generated while producing the gasoline from oil sands)
Charles Siegel