Why don't we try and focus on a real energy alternative to oil as a nation? LIke a "space race" focus?

Look, here’s what I say… let’s open up some oil drilling in the short term, to help in the short run… maybe with some added safety regulations…

but really as a nation focus on an alternative to oil in the long run… like NASA did on getting to the moon in the 1960s…

oil and natural gas probably won’t last longer than 100 years, with current population growth and in increase of oil use around the world… and this is an issue of national importance as we need some sort of energy to fuel our entire infrastructure…

I dont’ think anyone wants to wait until we start running out to find a solution…

I’m talking even better batteries, even better solar cells and looking at ways to make nuclear energy more efficient and cleaner…

it’s pretty clear that the private sector isn’t that concerned about it as they don’t think it’s going to turn a profit anytime in the next few quarters… I mean they’ll run out a few electric cars to get the tax cuts… but real research… I don’t see it happening…
well, to be frank… oil has been easily available and relatively affordable for the past 100 or so years… no REAL incentive to put a lot of work into other options…

it seems like most of the alt energy research has been "on the side" relatively…
I don’t want to go to ALL THE TROUBLE to switch from ONE limited resource to another… it seems kind of silly to change your ENTIRE infrasturture and just need to change it again in 100-200 years?
EDIT: I understand your point… but the main issue here is… we didn’t run out of railroads… we didn’t run out of phone service…

we may run out of oil though… and if we don’t prepare for that… it’s not going to be pretty…

and I don’t think we’ve been trying very hard, since oil was right there…

I mean, if we can’t find anything I’m willing to accept natural gas as a possibility, but frankly, I would like to try a little harder to find a renwable possibility before we fall back to energy with a finite supply…

10 Responses to “Why don't we try and focus on a real energy alternative to oil as a nation? LIke a "space race" focus?”

  1. Astro Smurf Says:

    Well, this was one area Obama should have focused upon for the Stimulus.

    It should have been an All-Alternative Energy agenda.

    There is still time, but the money would have been better spent

  2. Gee Wally Says:

    China mentioned going to the moon to get helium3 for nuclear fusion. We’ll be buying energy from them in the future when oil runs out because we sat on our hands. We’ll always be dependent on others for our energy needs if we are not careful.

  3. Here's your change Says:

    The Honda Clarity runs on water and compressed gas.
    It’s emission is water.

    If diesel engines ran cleaner, then why not use grease from fast food restaurants?

  4. Ronee Ray Gun Says:

    Fir Christ’s Sake if there was a good alternative fuel don’t ya think someone would marketing it right now?

    Ever since we started using oil people have been looking for other energy sources.

    There have been leaps and bounds in solar cells and still that tech has not produced a real deal.

    Btw, nuclear energy is clean. Except for the fact that you have to get rid of the waste.

    Btw, the current population growth is the real problem. Control and reduce the population you automatically reduce the use of all fuels.

  5. libsticker Says:

    We have a source, it’s Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), affordable and abundant, it’s right here in the United States and would put many people to work. It’s clean energy as it leaves water vapor as a bi-product. But the left sees CNG as another Fossil fuel and rails against it.

    Edit: We had a railroad infrastructure at one time and we changed it to highways. We had telephone lines criss crossing the nation now we have cellular. Look CNG is a fossil fuel, cheap and abundant, it solves our problem for a 100 years, wind and solar are not viable sources, they are too expensive to create and don’t produce enough energy to meet our needs.

  6. Everythang's gonna be all white Says:

    Why not let the private sector explore these possibilities? If there is a solution to be found, it will be there. In the mean time, Obozo will not encourage nuclear energy and he is doing his best to stop any type of oil exploration and drilling.

  7. Stay thirsty my friends Says:

    Republicans won’t let that happen until it’s too late, and twice as expensive.

  8. Consumer Puppet Says:

    CNG is another fossil fuel.. and no Ray Gun.. we don’t have an alternative because petroleum inhabits every facet of our lives and the producers of it have an iron clad grip on alternatives…

    Thats why you see the worlds worst polluters like Chevron and GE jumping into the green market.. it’s a total charade. We all know the story of Tucker cars, the Tire that never wore down, the Battery that never died.. etcetcetc..
    all of these technologies have been stifled by big oil and their owned legislative bodies around the world..

    There’s a war against people going on and no one’s even aware of it…
    watch this movie… you will never look at your world the same way again

  9. mr danger Says:

    Because alternative energy is not the right solution
    The right solution is to radically reduce your energy needs by adapting a more efficient alternative life style
    Case in point 1:
    If every house in the Phoenix metropolitan area was built the way that houses in deserts have been traditionally built for thousands of years…then they wouldn’t need A/C
    Add a grey water recycling system and use the water to water shade trees
    Case in Point 2
    The Island of Manhattan has the same amount of residents as the State of Nebraska does. Which place do you think uses all resources more efficiently ?
    The list goes on

  10. debo Says:

    There is no doubt in my mind that wind and solar energy will become increasingly important in this century. I sincerely hope that the government’s role in the development of these technologies is minimal. When the government gets involved in technological issues rather than letting private people innovate according to what is profitable, the consequence is usually disastrous. Case in point: the national highway system, a creation of federal and state governments, and one of the main reasons that Americans are so dependent on their cars in the first place. Because of this government-created system, more environmentally-friendly transportation methods like the train were no longer as profitable and therefore went into decline. Instead, it became profitable to build suburbs devoid of sidewalks, but convenient to highways, and the common people, following what was profitable for them, moved into these suburbs since housing cost them less than it did in train-connected cities, thus reinforcing their need for the automobile. What will happen if government gets too involved in alternative energy – what is already happening? The government will subsidize technologies that a bunch of non-experts is led by corporate experts to believe are "green". These corporate experts are more interested in the "green" dollar than in what is truly good for the environment. Companies that grow corn and want a bigger market and higher prices for it, will convince the government that corn based bio-fuels are "green", so they will receive subsidies to research it and produce it, driving up the price of food for poor people all over the world. The government will give big companies free land to build huge wind farms and solar installations, so it will never become profitable for companies to market technologies that would allow homeowners to install their own systems and free themselves from the utility companies. The one area in which I think the government might be able to assist the environmentally-friendly energy cause is to charge people for the damage they do to the environment by using fossil and radioactive fuels. This might consist in increased taxes on gasoline and on electricity from environmentally harmful sources and in addition (for industries), surcharges for emmissions, which could NOT be reduced by funding other activities as in the corporate- welfare-friendly carbon credit system. In fairness, the money received from these taxes should be used for cleaning up the environmental mess (not really sure what could be done for the air though), ensuring that radioactive garbage is kept out of the environment, etc. There are big problems with that approach however. It would create a proportionally greater burden on poor people and on American industry, and therefore would be very hard to push through. But eventually, it would make alternative energies a more profitable choice since it would pass on the costs of the problem to the people making the choices. This would make energy conservation an even more profitable activity than it already is and would also make it easier for companies to turn a profit on solar and wind systems without the need to subsidize and mis-direct their research.