GovCentral

I was hearing on the news this morning that this man from Texas, T. Boone Pickens is trying to push a different kind of energy and is really advertising that theUS has a lot of energy  resources but fail to utilize them.  Do you know anything about this man?  I guess I could have googled him, but I would rather have your opinion.  He was explaining that the alternative to fuel is by using the "windmills" for energy sources.

peacebe says ...

Hi!  The windmillls having the energy stored in generators is not a bad idea.  Solar panels are also great.  Energy independence from foreign oil is of importance.  I pray that it starts soon because of all the money that we are borrowing from others right now puts someone else in charge right now and that's not good.

YES, in parts of California - places like Palm Springs and Palm Desert - one can see great extensions of land devoted to windmill energy. In places like Puerto Rico the concept of solar energy - well, it's the middle of the Caribbean - is not foreign to most people; actually it's quite common. In Japan and France nuclear energy feeds a healthy chunk of their energy needs. It seems it is mostly here (in the United States) that politics and fanatism has taken over, instead of pragmatism and science, an area where American national (security) interests should prevail. To many of us is hard to believe a small minority of environmentalist radicals have dominated the issue for decades. No?

Balance and sound judgement are keys to good policy.  As stated in an earlier post a well organized, affluent, well connected media savy environmental movement has long dominated the politics of the environmental movement in this nation.  As result of media scare tactics, poor science and a hands off the environment philosophy; development and construction of safe advanced nuclear power plants, wind farms, tidal energy projects and clean coal fired plants have beeen hamstrung.

While these movements served a purpose in the past to alert us to abuses of the enviroment from corporations, they have become increasingly radicalized over time.  

About a decade ago concerns about the effects of environmental degredation and climate change was of high interest to the Department of Defense.  This was do to the impact these problems would have on us as from a National Security perspective as we moved into the new century.  As a senior military intelligence analyst I looked at the data and discussions that were ongoing at the time and came, like most others interested in the subject, alarmed but what we were seeing.  Issues like the national security impact of a change in weather pattern and environmental degredation could have on the Panama Canal were high interest items.  Due to a combination of these two factors we were concerned as we moved into the new century that the operation of the canal could be disrupted due to low water levels in resuvoirs.

Others were concerned about disruptions of stability in developing countries as climated paterns changed.

The one common theme that came from our discussions was that only the developing world with its access to high technology was likely to be able to effectively manage the changes likely to come.  

Unfortunately the environmental movement discussed above has hamstrung our effects to move us in the direction we need to go in a timely proactive fashion.

It is odd that one of the departments of the government  most despised by the environmental movement, the DOD, is the one that has been one of the ones most concerned about this issue and the effects it is likely to have on us as a nation.

It was my understanding that oil shale took more energy to make usable than it produced.

Anyone remember when there was the possibility of wave farms being a big source of energy?  What the hell happened to that?

Fishingguy, thanks for sharing the knowledge you have acquired through your job and personal observations. I guess some people mistake our interest in diversifying energy sources with an agenda to push one type of energy over another. That's not the case. Our national security interests demand we explore, invest and develop new vehicles to sustain our industries and economy. Period.

Everything in life has its pros and cons, whether it is energy, technology or alliances. This does not mean we do not pursue practical ways to diversify (or eliminate) the vulnerability to foreign oil in our country. It would be unwise to do so. As far as I know, today nuclear energy is one of the safest cleanest energy-producing sources in the world. Yet like with everything else in life, accidents can happen.

Experts believe one of the reasons we are now suffering through high gasoline prices has to do with our irresponsible abandonment of nuclear energy investment, oil exploration and drilling in our country, and no new refinery construction in decades. Perception all these energy sources are dangerous, even evil by some, has disarmed our nation in one of the areas that make us most vulnerable. Shameful. Our leaders have failed to confront this controversial issue for fear of offending a few influential environmentat lobbysts - and Hollywood.

No technology is 100% infallible although some have better track records than others. Due to its nature nuclear energy - in the United States - has a negative connotation these days. In many other countries it continues to be an important energy provider, especially now Russia is flexing its military and energy might around the world. Even allying itself with Venezuela.

Personally I am happy with the idea vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has made "Energy Independence" one of the top elements of her platform. As even our board responses have proven it's one of the most relevant subjects on American minds nowadays. One may not agree with other points of her agenda, but emphasizing matters of energy and its impact in our pocketbooks is the right thing for her to do now.

Until we are willing to put all options on the table and begin making long term decisions to empower, and liberate, our nation's energy needs, we will continue dependent and vulnerable to political instability and blackmail from abroad. Safe nuclear energy is one of these options. Freeing Alaska to explore, drill and market our own natural oil resources is also a rational choice.

It's kind of funny that the middle-east has been pushing to get their cars on natural gas for at least a few years now.  I can't find the article I read earlier this year, but here's couple other articles:

Middle East May Have 1 Million Natural Gas Vehicles by 2010:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/middle_east_may.html

Iran ends petrol-only car making:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6278120.stm

Alternative energy is important.  Energy independence is important no matter how much oil we may have.  What does a homeowner do when they can't get oil in their home fast enough when it is unusually cold.  The person in an apartment where everything is electric.  What do you cook on when the electric goes out for a few days?

My folks had lived in a house that was made back during WWII, they depended upon oil.  My husband and I live in an apartment that depends upon electricity wholly.  I am also interested in solar energy and how that makes jobs.  So glad that you brought it up and  had that article!

Like the space program every dollar the government spends in promoting alternative energy technology generates at a minimum of 3 dollars of additional economic growth as a return.  If we look at ethanol production, the construction of ethanlo plants, planting of crops, manufacture of agricultural production products and all other associated products generated large numbers of jobs.  

This mostly stemmed from the granting of tax credits.  With these credits the producers of ethanol were able to secure loans and build the infrastructure they needed to produce this product. 

Alternative energy investment has long been stiffled by investment in oil production because of a number of economic factors, to include the fact that Wall Street investment managers pushed large amounts of capital from pension funds and other pools of money into it.   This gave big oil an enormous amount of power with regards to local, state, and federal politics. 

If local, state and federal officals invest large amounts of pension funds into big oil, how likely are they to vote for investments in alternative energy?

Its a wonder that anything at all was invested in the development of sources of alternative energy.

It is important to make sure that wherever the energy processes start that the environment isn't hurt.  Too much has been built where the animals have no place to live any more.

Ooo - that is interesting!  Thanks for the link, Stella!