An effort to require better mileage from U.S. cars and trucks failed in its bid for a full Senate vote Friday morning, 53 to 42. Opponents of the measure, which passed the House Thursday, had threatened to filibuster the bill, and its supporters could not muster the 60 votes required to bring it to a full vote. The bill, which was opposed by President Bush, would have ended some tax loopholes for the oil industry and used those funds to extend tax credits renewable energy sources. -CNN


this was passed in the house this week as moving the US towards energy independence - HAAAA!!!!!

taxing big oil is not going to get us off the Middle East oil rig! higher gas mileage in our gas guzzlers won't move us there either

WE NEED TO DRILL and BUILD REFINERIES and NUCLEAR PLANTS

how about finding alternative energy, pale? and not the thermodynamically-inefficient-though-politically-desireable kind.

I am for moving ahead in an economical way on all fronts; but lets drill for oil before Mexico and the South American countries drain the Gulf dry of "our" oil

Got one in my back yard, thank you very much!

What is nuclear power not an alternative to, Ron?

Yes, actually it would. Why wouldn't better gas mileage help? It certainly did the last time we did it.

i know the navy possesses many nuclear powered vehicles but i'm not sure of any available to the consumer market.

(btw, i'm not against nuclear power at all.)

So long as massive amounts of oil are being used to generate electricity, how would building more nuclear plants not be an alternative to that? Energy is fungible, Ron. And our transportation infrastructure can be fairly easily altered to accomodate it.

are you arguing for the sake of arguing? i'm all for nuclear. i support it!

i'm talking about changing the transportation infrastructure!

how many years of using oil for energy did it add? Can we offset all the new cars in India and China being added each day.

Those pesky Chinese are adding, on average, a new coal plant each week

What specific changes, Ron?

well first, j suggested that it was easy enough to change so i want to hear about his ideas for this and why he thinks that this hasn't been happening faster if it is so easy.

second, nuclear is but one way to achieve alternative energy.

third, politically, we need to move away from the whole corn ethanol thing. let's look at beets, etc. how about hydrogen cells? stuff like that.

gotcha. how do you feel about drilling in the protected areas temporarily until we get the other resources more usable?

but, i totally agree that we need to ramp up r&d enormously.

imagine a world where we didn't have to rely on the middle east?

yeah, lets look at sugar beets for fuel, the subsidies are so high already since it can't compete with cane, lets put even higher subsidies on beets and make the ppl buy that

How about anti-matter?

yeah, lets harness the power of the black hole

it was just an example that i've heard people throw out there. i'm up for any alternative to corn. i'm no expert on energy and chemical engineering but i have seen a number of unfavorable statistics about the thermodynamics of energy via corn.

it was just an example that i've heard people throw out there. i'm up for any alternative to corn. i'm no expert on energy and chemical engineering but i have seen a number of unfavorable statistics about the thermodynamics of energy via corn.

care to elaborate on anti-matter as an alternative?

No, that would appear to be you, who first criticized Pale's call for more nuclear energy, then belittled it when I said it was an alternative, and now claims to fully support it. Whatever makes you happy, Ron.

well if i made it seem that way, i apologize. i dont remember belittling it, either.

care to answer any of the easy transportation needs that you alluded to? using oil for energy is one thing and nuclear is certainly a viable solution though not the only one. but 8billion gallons of gas/yr is a lot (it might even be more. i just remember hearing that figure somewhere).

"i know the navy possesses many nuclear powered vehicles but i'm not sure of any available to the consumer market."


(a) You need to understand that energy can be utilized through a variety of interfaces. Gasoline is only one. Energy is also needed for a variety of purposes. Transportation is only one. (b) Even if you never move from an internal combustion engine for a majority of our transportation means, leaving that as the only energy need we meet with oil would be a massive improvement (remember, price is set at the margin). (c)(i) We already are close to economically feasible plug-and-charge vehicles; the rising cost of gasoline is only making them moreso. (c)(ii) To the extent that you are ever able to solve the hydrogen storage problems that me must overcome in order to move to a fuel cell solution for transportation needs, you're going to have so have some form of energy input to produce the fuel cells. Right now, nuclear is the best bet.

now was that so hard? and i was belittling you, not nuclear there.

ok

lets pack it up people, the week is over, we have real people waiting for us outside of BOL

we can get back to solving the world's problems next week, its not like they are going anywhere, although I hear Reid is gonna call the Senate into session tomorrow on energy, er well really just to mess with Nobama and Opra in Iowa

Translation: I got nothin'.