ALRIGHT- OBVIOUSLY, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS BECOMING A HUGE ISSUE.

[Guaranteed]

Should we MAYBE do something about it?

This issue is fairly new, as far as its urgency, at least- it HASN'T BEEN FRAMED, YET. HOW should it be framed?

I suggested the term "dirty energy," earlier, but, obviously, our approach has to be much broader than that. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO???

I'm thinking another Manhatten Project, which has been suggested a number of times on DU, by me and others.

And HOW do we get our Dems to take up this issue as their number 1 (or, perhaps #2, given the state of the media- at least PUBLICLY, #1) issue, while they continue to take oil company campaign donations?

This IS the issue for the 2006 campaign.

Now, YOU TELL ME: ARE WE GOING TO RUN WITH THIS, TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CLAIM LEADERSHIP AND IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE COWARDS ONCE AGAIN???

[BlueJac]

1. Should of been fucking 30 years ago....

How stupid do people have to be to see oil will not last forever and it kills the planet.......I wish it only killed stupid politicians but it doesn't.

[Guaranteed]

2. YES. We should have, and DID, see this coming long ago.

The Middle East. Cultural problems. Oil.

Gee, whoulda thunk it???

But we didn't make an ISSUE of it, or do anything ABOUT it!!!

[lindisfarne]

14. Carter was on top of this when he was president.The public and politicians

weren't.

[YapiYapo]

48. I wish it won't kill millions

If not billions, some experts predict 380$ per barrel for 2015.

[Blue_Roses]

3. I'm right there too

it's way past time for alternative sources of energy. The big oil companies are laughing all the way to the bank.:mad:

[KittyWampus]

4. Dearest BGL, There's The "Apollo Project"

rather than sending a man to the moon, now we need to retool our economy for Green Tech. :)

If only Kerry had made this the central theme, the fulcrum of his campaign.

This is a National Security Issue!

:hi:

[Guaranteed]

5. YES!! He should have!!

And, I coulda sworn that I said that, about a thousand times.

For FUCK'S SAKE, PEOPLE!! It's time to start SCREAMING!!!!!!! at our representatives.

We need to make this our #1 priority, as a nation. ENOUGH with this BULLSHIT!!!!

OUR ECONOMY, OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS, AND OUR ENVIRONMENT ARE BEING ENTIRELY DESTROYED.


IS IT TIME, YET?????

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. I am with you there. We need to focus on energy and recycling

[Snotcicles]

83. How does this sound

Good Economy, Good Ecology, Eco-Energy.

[sandnsea]

23. That must be sarcasm

"If only Kerry had made this the central theme, the fulcrum of his campaign."

Some days I don't even know why I bother.

[Guaranteed]

29. LOL. Somehow, I don't think it is.

Nowhere near a fulcrum, or a centerpiece, there.

Nowhere, nowhere near it.

Token $10 billion projects that hardly ever get talked about don't count as centerpieces, I'm afraid.

[sandnsea]

36. Let me guess

You were blathering about swift boats and shoes and other pointless bullshit, right?

[Guaranteed]

44. I don't think what *I* was talking about is the issue, here.

I think what Kerry was talking about is the issue.

And, while he did mention it several times, to act as if he used it as the CENTERPIECE of his campaign is quite obviously disingenuous.

Somehow, it was NOT an issue in the media. At all.

[KittyWampus]

53. And Kerry didn't make it an issue in the Media either.

although I think an ad from Iowa primaries MAY have flashed images of windmills on the screen.

[sandnsea]

64. See #63

The media made swift boat lies and flip flops the centerpiece of the campaign. What's that got to do with reality?

[blm]

81. This KnightRidder report said JK made it a focus "throughout his campaign"

And THIS particular speech was in addition to the previous 2 years worth of speeches on this issue.


http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=8504&fcategory_desc=Alternative%20Energy

August 06, 2004



By: James Kuhnhenn



Knight Ridder

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry on Friday rolled out new details of a $20 billion, 10-year plan to steer America toward energy independence.

Kerry said his plan would spur job growth and help the environment, but most importantly would help free the United States from dependence on the Middle East, which he said threatened American security.

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, donned jeans and rolled up their shirt sleeves at a farm north of downtown Kansas City to describe a plan that Kerry compared to President Kennedy's vision to put a man on the moon.

"When we push the curve of discovery in this country we open up the possibility of a better life for our people," he said.

The $20 billion would come from existing royalties that oil and gas companies pay the federal government for offshore operations. Of that, $10 billion would be spent on a plan Kerry has outlined previously to help U.S. automakers retool plants to build more fuel-efficient vehicles.

His additional proposal, which would cost about $5 billion over 10 years, is designed to move the country toward meeting 20 percent of its motor-fuel demands in 2020 with U.S.-made alternative fuels, including ethanol, soy-based diesel and other fuels from waste products.

The final $5 billion would cover a host of items including tax incentives for consumers to purchase energy-efficient vehicles, the extension of a tax break for ethanol and federal support for marketing hybrid-fuel vehicles.

Separately, Kerry proposes a $10 billion clean-coal technology program as a pro-environment, pro-coal community effort. Kerry also sets a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation's electric power with renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass technologies, by 2020.

"We can be smart and show leadership and build a future for our children, help our farmers of today by beginning to move toward energy independence for this country," he said.

The focus on energy came as global oil prices surged to record highs and stock prices plunged, raising fears that the economy may be sinking anew. But throughout his campaign, Kerry has identified energy independence primarily with national security. On Friday, he again repeated a popular line that links his energy plan indirectly to criticism of the war in Iraq:

"John and I are going to put in place the principle that no young American in uniform will have to be held hostage to our dependence on oil in the Middle East."
>>>>>>>>

[KittyWampus]

52. Hardly Sandnsea, Retooling the US for Green was a minute part of Kerry's

long, rambling and unfocused spiel.

You cannot honestly say it was the central theme.

[sandnsea]

63. War, Jobs, Global Competition, Environment

He related all of it to alternative energy. I honestly don't know how anyone who paid an iota of attention missed it. I just don't.

[Guaranteed]

70. I was here for hours every day, and you know that, SNS.

It was nowhere near a concentration of his campaign.

He was talking about Iraq, and terrorism.

He failed to globalize the issue.

[sandnsea]

71. Yes I do, which is why I'm pissed beyond fucking belief

That you DARE to even mention the words Manhatten Project and then deny that Kerry said them almost every speech he made.

Yeah, I remember last year plenty well. And how so many people BEGGED certain DUers to get ON MESSAGE and stay there. And a HUGE part of that message, especially as it related to Iraq and terrorism, was ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.

Oh but fuck no, everybody knew the way to win was bash Bush and get into spitting matches over purple hearts and flip flops.

You goddamn right I remember.

[Guaranteed]

72. It just wasn't there.

No one remembers it being that way, a central issue to his campaign. Because it wasn't.

He had a proposal that he threw out there with the rest of the proposals. That was all.

[sandnsea]

73. Read the thread

Funny who remembers and who doesn't. Actually, not funny. Disgusting more like.

I'm done before I totally blow a gasket.

[blm]

79. Kerry RAN WITH THAT his entire campaign. He was the FIRST lawmaker to

link alternative energy to NATIONAL SECURITY.

It was KERRY who said that alternative energy should be given the same focus and funding as the nation did to go to the moon.

I am SHOCKED that ANYONE would have have forgotten one of the greatest mainstay issues of Kerry's campaign, even if the corporate media DIDN'T bother to discuss it. It was in EVERY CAMPAIGN SPEECH.

[electron_blue]

6. Yes, let's do it. Hey - my house is 100% powered by wind

(sort of). I figure that's a start.

[Guaranteed]

60. That's excellent. You're doing your part. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. We gotta elect mayors who are willing to help people get

solar panels on their homes. (The benefit to the towns being that if they are grid-tied houses, businesses, and municipal buildings their excess power flows out and they become mini power stations.)

http://solarhouse.com/

[Guaranteed]

10. This is much more than solar. How are we going to power cars?

From what I hear, solar doesn't have the power, speaking physics terms, to power cars sufficiently.

What we need is an alternative energy that has a PUNCH like gasoline, but is CHEAPER, and doesn't release ridiculous amounts of pollutants into the environment.

Perhaps hydrogen? I don't know. It costs a lot to make, but it burns DAMNED clean, and isn't nearly as dangerous as some think.

In any case, the idea is that we need our BEST SCIENTISTS *and* ECONOMISTS working on this. NOW, GODDAMNIT!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm SICK of this shit.

This should have been done SO FUCKING LONG AGO!!!!!!

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Bio-diesel hybrids are one way to go

[Guaranteed]

19. How/what do they burn? nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. Well the electric part is battery operated, the biodiesel is

is generally old veggie oil. cars can smell like fish and chips instead of gasoline or oil diesel.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/04/the_biodiesel_h.php

http://www.veggiebus.com/

[Guaranteed]

26. What are the byproducts? Anything other than H20 and CO2? nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. Well, the old fried food odor. I have not heard of other emissions

but honestly I cannot think of what else it would break down in to.

Trouble with hydrogen cars is that the powers that be want to obtain the hydrogen by burning massive amounts of coal. Does nothing to help the environmental issue. You would have to get them to solarize it to make it ecologially sound.

[Guaranteed]

34. To make H2 all you need is electricity.

And the best thing about it is that it is UNBELIEVABLY clean-burning.

Water. That's the product. No CO2, no global warming.

And, as a combustible gas, there is plenty of power behind it. It IS somewhat volatile. However, we already have many vehicles running on it.

It's not impossible, by ANY stretch of the imagination.

The problem is just making the hydrogen itself.

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Which is why I worry that we will wind up with coal plants making

the hydrogen. You know the people running the show would do that in a heartbeat.

[nashbridges]

86. Where does the electricity come from?

Either a coal plant or a nuclear plant. The fallacy of electric cars is that people assume it's clean energy, and it isn't. Not only does it have to come from somewhere, but the longer you run a power line, the more energy dissipates from it in the form of radiation.

The easiest way to get Hydrogen for fuel cells right now is to break down methane gas (which we can produce cheaply), but that still leaves a soot by-product. It's also not that efficient, so we're several years away from getting such a converter into a car.

The hydrogen in a fuel cell car doesn't ignite, it simply bonds with an oxygen molecule to make water. The release of energy comes from the current generated when the two molecules meet.

[tammywammy]

39. Check out this website

www.biodiesel.org

They can tell you the break down of emissions running Biodiesel. Also, biodiesel isn't always used veggie oil, some of it is made as biodiesel and never used to cook food (so no smell).

Check out the other links in my signature, all are good resources on TDI (diesel) engines and biodiesel.

[randomelement]

40. There's always VO/WVO

VO = vegetable oil
WVO = waste vegetable oil

You might want to check out this site:

http://www.frybrid.com

It would certainly keep the struggling farmers busy getting us moved over from the petroleum dependency. Ideally, the auto industry should develop a diesel motor that can burn this stuff right out of the chute instead of having to endure the conversion effort, but this is an alternative for those of us wanting to move away from Big Oil.

[jpak]

87. Electrified public transit and electrified intercity & interstate trains

could replace most of our fossil fueled transportation needs

Solar, wind, biomass, biogas, geothermal and hydro-generated electricity supported by distributed electrolyzers and hydrogen fuel cells (to store energy and manage loads) could be used to deliver the juice.

Unfortunately, there's no magical liquid fuel that can/will replace petroleum...

[MsTryska]

91. good article from August's National Geographic:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature1/fulltext.html



if we're gonna do a Manhattan project (as opposedt o Apollo ;-) )

can we work on Nuclear Fusion this time?

[meow mix]

9. theres a whole lot of coal in our future. and nuke. mostly coal.

more so than has ever been imagined...
its pretty despressing to even think about.

[Guaranteed]

15. I realize you're not actually advocating the idea, but us reverting back

to COAL POWER is unbelievably inefficient, horrible for the environment, and, more than anything, IMPRACTICAL!!

What, we're going back to the steam engine???

Why not move FORWARD, if we're going to have to retool anyway??

[meow mix]

35. i know its insane..

unfortunatly the stuff is laying there.. and theres a lot of repubs who want to increase the global warming by digging it up and setting it on fire.
so...
synthetic "oil" from coal and tar will make them a whole lot of money in the near furture.
if something can stop that.. ill be very happy.

[Guaranteed]

43. And THAT is where "DIRTY ENERGY" comes in.

Coal power needs to be classified well under that phrase.

Shit, that's "caveman energy"....anothery possibility!!!

"Caveman energy."

[YapiYapo]

49. There is no alternative

In term of cheap mass energy source.

But even for coal liquefaction it could be too late to avoid economy collapse.

[KittyWampus]

11. Petroleum Is A Terrorist Friendly Energy Source!

if you use gas to heat your homes, you're supporting terrorism... :D

[Guaranteed]

18. We're all working for the Saudis, now.

So they can blow up our cities and people.

[crispini]

12. We need to start retooling the transportation infrastructure

to be more bike-friendly. People won't bike commute if they don't have wide lanes and feel safe, no place to put the bike and nowhere to shower at work.

[Guaranteed]

20. We've got too much surburbia. We have to shoot higher. nt

[crispini]

31. Can't we do both?

I do like the "new manhattan project" meme.

[Guaranteed]

38. Oh, most DEFINITELY. We could have tax breaks, new trails, all kinds

of things for those who live within biking distance of their work.

And what's the unintended, unbelievably BENEFICIAL side effect to that idea???

:)

You tell me.

[Opusnone]

13. It's so simple even a pseudo cowboy could do it

Start with a stated mission- like ending US dependence on foreign oil, natural gas and fossil fuels by 2025. Implement a government-led TVA style program for building, researching, developing and implementing alternative energy programs across the spectrum. Transportation, utility, manufacturing, and consumer. Start children on alternative energy education programs focusing on science and mathematics. Encourage personal innovation. Use vocational and adult eduction for the unemployed, poor, disenfranchised, and outsourced workers. Teach them how to build efficient batteries (the biggest hurdle to hybrid manufacturing), install solar systems, wind turbines, hydro-electric projects, nuclear, bio diesel. Let the farmers grow corn and soybeans for bio diesel fuel.
Make it like a massive war effort. It will and can work.
If FDR were President he'd make it work.
A massive national effort toward energy independence could lift this country to great heights and end much of foreign aggression brought about by oil.
Much of this type of project could be funded with cuts in Star Wars and weapons programs.

[Guaranteed]

16. We need to shoot higher than that. They built a hydrogen bomb in, what,

5 years?


We need to be within ten years for the entire technological vision and material retooling.

[amerikat]

21. I'm leaning towards a vegetable oil based transportation system.

Any car or truck that runs on diesel can burn vegetable oil. We can grow it right here in this country. A mix of solar and wind can do the rest. We also need to build more efficiency into our cars and homes.

[Guaranteed]

28. Totally agreed on the home energy.

If we could get homes running nearly exclusively on solar or any other kind of energy, that would free up HUGE amounts of energy to create energy for transportation.

[wuushew]

57. Unless you use algae thats going to equal a hell of a lot of land

Consider for a moment annual heating and transportation consumption of petroleum in the U.S. is 230,600,000,000 gallons a year.

If we assume the energy content of bio-diesel roughly equals that of gasoline then we would need at a minimum 11,530,000 acres using algae or 4,612,000,000 using soybeans. Also please consider that total harvested cropland in the United States is only 300 million acres. While it would be possible to change or alter the characteristics of this land use, it is a zero sum game which will affect the economic use of this land for other purposes.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/fuel_comp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
http://www.carryingcapacity.org/resources.html
http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm

From this we can see that positive population growth is incompatible with fixed renewable resource availability and since conservation is unlikely to equal increases in demand we must abandon the concept of growth if we expect to maintain or improve our notions of industrial civilization.

[amerikat]

61. soybeans are a poor choice for growing oil

rapeseed oil has a much higher yield.

[wuushew]

68. Rapeseed would still exceed the maximum arable land in the U.S.

(900 million acres) by quite a bit.

[amerikat]

88. Where are these numbers from...got a link? (nt)

[sandnsea]

22. It hasn't been framed???

It's new?? A new "Manhatten Project" just popped into your head? Out of the blue?

You were doing what last year??????

[Guaranteed]

27. Oh, it's actually an ISSUE now???

Shit. Coulda fooled me.

Not that it hasn't been pressing.

[sandnsea]

32. It was an ISSUE last year

A huge issue, one of the biggest of the campaign. What the fuck did you think "can't drill our way out" and "not depending on the Saudi Royal family" and "no more wars for foreign oil" was all about?

What the hell were YOU telling people the campaign was about?

[Guaranteed]

46. LOL are you SHITTING me??? Alternative energy was a real issue

in the 2004 election?

Did anyone else catch that last year?

How, with my practically 24-hour monitoring of DU *and* the MSM, did I possibly miss that one?

That's not to say that Kerry didn't mention it. But- an ISSUE? Yeah. Right.

Newsflash, SNS- If it had been a REAL issue....*we would have won.*

[fedupinBushcountry]

51. Yeah I did

to bad you were caught up in the pundit media, and instead of really knowing what was being talked about, you trusted the media to tell you? :dunce: Please Kerry brought the issue up in every rally. To bad you listened to soundbites,now what is that phrase "It's the media stupid". :argh:

[Guaranteed]

58. That is a total falsehood.

Kerry had a token $10 billion dollar project. But no one, in particular on DU, was talking about it.

And it was most definitely NOT the centerpiece of his platform, or even anywhere near it. It was just your typical political shit. Nothing with any sense of urgency. "Hey, this might be a good idea."

No, it wasn't "a good idea." It was ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NECESSARY, THEN AND NOW.

*EMERGENCY*

[blm]

85. COMPLETELY FALSE.....ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE

was always a staple of Kerry's campaign.

It was one of the lynchpins of his STRONGER AMERICA campaign.

As in:
Alternative energy as a serious goal will play an integral role in our national security.

Man, if you missed that during the campaign, you missed about 2 years of the campaign.

I thought most DUers watched Cspan or went to the campaign rallies.

[KittyWampus]

75. He "brought up the issue", he mentioned it in passing. It was NOT the

central theme.

It was NOT and to pretend it was is wishful thinking.

Kerry didn't HAVE a central theme to begin with.

[blm]

89. I notice no replies to the KnightRidder article posted because it proves

the claim that Kerry didn't make this a central theme is FALSE.

Sorry you missed it in the corporate broadcast media, but Kerry laid it out there for over 2 years and did so CONSISTENTLY.

[Mass]

55. It was an issue, there is no doubt about that,

(it was part of Kerry's stump speech, not that the media cared about that) but it certainly was not THE issue.

Why? Because most democrat activists dont care about the issue, so it got no traction.

It is easy to see on DU that this issue gets no traction at all. Each time somebody posts something about that, it sinks immediately.

This issue needs a constant presentation to the American public. It needs to be part of the campaigns again and again and again.

[KittyWampus]

77. Leadership isn't about "most democratic activists don't care

about that issue".

Leadership is about seeing the Big Picture and finding a hook.

It's about seeing where we need to go and figuring a way to get people moving in that direction.

Kerry did not do that. He presented a rambling speech that had no real unique "Vision". He had a laundry list of proposals.

But I appreciate your candor in admitting that retooling our Economy for Green Tech was only a part of what he talked about.

[Mass]

78. I certainly disagree with you on that, but this is NOT the issue

The issue is that energy and environment issues must be made visible at a grassroot level.

A presidential campaign is NOT the place where it should start. We should not wait for somebody to tell us that. If we cant figure that out by ourselves and talk about it, I dont see what we are worth doing.

If you want a pol that is going to talk about that, start by saying it is important to you (we should be those who decide what is important, not the other way around).

BTW, no candor from my part. I just dont believe in heroes. I think that one of the weakest points on DU is the need people have to idolize somebody and to refuse that he/she is sometimes wrong. It seems as if people did not believe in themselves and needed somebody to lead them. The idea is simply so wrong to me. I want somebody who represents what I believe in, that's all.

[darkworkz]

25. simple answers for complex times is the key...

I thought about writing a new post on the topic presented in the OP. Then I figured why go through all the work when I could cut and past something Nov 24, 2004.

Hope it's not to dated.

Past:

I will start by clearly stating that my immediate purpose is to help you frame your thoughts so that what now appears a large and daunting task can be viewed from its simplest root form. Your goal is not that large and can be attained simply. It's all a matter of information and perspective.

Take a look at the opposition. By this I mean the Republican administration and their followers. The fundamental questions that don't appear to have been asked are; what do they want? What is the true end goal?

The simplistic answer to these is - they want power. They want control. Power to do what? Control over what? Now that you've seen them in action for 4 years (not dealing with the Reagan, Bush I terms, just W.) what is the end result? What have they produced? What does it look like they're going to produce?

Let their actions dictate the definition, neither their words nor your own imaginings of the answer. Call them by their actions and you'll be one step further along.

Let's deal with the term opposition. What are they in opposition of? What are they opposed too? You should clearly define this by their actions as well. They're not going to do it for you, but they are / have shown you by their actions.

The reason I started with the above points was to illustrate that clearly defining the opposition will help you understand them and in turn lead to crafting a more succinct plan of attack that leaves them no room but, to first agree then follow your direction. Don't forget the methods they employed against you, and don't follow their methods. If you try, you'll be playing by their rules and you will lose. This has been proven time and again.

Let's look at one of the leading minds in the present administration, Karl Rove. His playbook, in simple terms comes from Nicolò Machiavelli, Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hagel, and some Friedrich Nietzsche sprinkled in for good measure. Karl has used the ideals of these and others to achieve a level of success that few imagined possible. The key is to understand what he's done, remove his tools, and he's finished.

I'll touch on one aspect of Karl's playbook at this point. Hagel taught (presented in abbreviated form) Thesis; antithesis; synthesis. Or stated another way - Problem; Reaction; Solution. Since you brought up terrorism we'll use that for an example of how this works in the real world. Terrorist attack (Thesis); People are shocked and have fear (Antithesis); Laws are quickly passed that may not be in the best long-term interest of the citizens and, are under public debate at this moment (Synthesis). This is an oversimplified view of Karl's technique and consistent actions.

How can you take what you've seen in action and turn it toward your ends? First find the largest, most pervasive problem. Crashing economy could be your Thesis. Next before it actually hits the broader population you should outline potential public reaction and follow closely the moves of the administration; Antithesis. For your Solution you must take stock of what you have to place on offer that will reach the broadest possible audience and have direct, positive, impact upon their daily lives.

Let's delve into the Solution arena since this was the reason you posted your initial request. Looking back at history (both recent and ancient) you can read about numerous governments that have encountered problems similar to what is faced by the USA at present. Not all of them survived. What was one of the critical factors that unified (from your own studies) each of these entities? Natural resources. This is not a problem faced by the USA. The US can independently feed itself. The US doesn't have to import raw materials. So two of the largest items are of no concern to the US. So that leaves energy and money (of course there are other forces but this is the simplified form). The mark of a good solution would be one that eliminated both issues simultaneously.

Solution

http://www.globalhemp.com/Archives/Government_Research/USDA/hemp_for_victory.shtml

The USA used this product to great effect before and during W.W.II and it was one of, if not the most important to the country's survival. The library of congress has thousands of documents from the Department of Agriculture, State, and Defense that go into detail of growth patterns, exports, and uses.

Delving further into the Solution let's do some easy math on what this would mean for the near term (inside of 5 years) economy of the US. There are at present millions of hectares of pre-developed farmland lying fallow across the US. What this means is very little preparation and set up time. Hypothetically speaking; if ten thousand individual farms began immediate planting of crop you could reasonably add 5 assistants to each farm. The infrastructure for moving material is already in place (meaning roads). You then add an additional ten thousand drivers to move product from field to processing. You could reasonably say another ten thousand employees at initial processing plants for fuel production. The spin-off materials from the initial processing for fuel are endless and I'll point out 2 - textiles and plastics.

This one product inside of 24 months has the potential of employing several hundred thousand persons, lowering fuel prices across the board and rebuilding the tax base for the entire nation. With new money flowing into all sectors of the economy.

This Solution doesn't require government grants or funding. If you wanted to view this from a private enterprise perspective the only thing necessary is the government lifting the moratorium on production, a P.R. campaign touting the returning economic force of the US. Wall Street, the banks and venture capital firms will rush into the arena for the new "pioneers" and the nations economic pump will be primed and running.

Recent history (inside of the last 100 years) states that this is a simple, doable, winning Solution. If you pursue this angle of attack you will have the USA on its feet again inside of 24 months. This has nothing whatsoever to do with reinterpreting drug laws. This is about industry. Right now what industry is the USA excelling in? The opposition can't approach this area due to conflict of interest with financial backers and interpersonal loyalties. For a simple plan with broad reaching implications for the entire nation, there are not many much easier than this. And you have the documents from one of the USA's most trying times W.W.II, as evidence, support and guidance for success.

[FogerRox]

33. Lets get control of our country back--- 1st

[darkworkz]

42. The issues are the same.

You can't have one without the other.

You take the country back by leading from the front, not the rear. Putting concrete issues on the table is leading.

Talking about doing something is, well...just talking.

[Mass]

45. This is totally linked

Who do you think finance the Republicans?

Why do you think we are in Iraq? What decided of our foreign policy for the last 30 years: cheap oil.

I agree with the OP that this is a MAJOR issue and that the dems should take the issue and run with it.

[darkworkz]

47. yes, it is.

Who finances the Republicans? Not the Citizens (in bulk that is)
Iraq and foreign policy? Cheap oil, sure. But the world "dependence" might be more appropriate. Dependence? Who gains? Not you.

Only thing that's needed is leadership. and the grassroots are that. If they want to be. (or finally figure out that they HAVE to be.)

[Mass]

41. Happy to see that DU is waking up at this idea

Who knows? May be in the next election, people here will actually care enough to hear it when a candidate will speak about energy independance and alternative energies.

And YES, IT IS A HUGE ISSUE.

[wisteria]

50. John Kerry was talking about this issue during the election

saying we should be supporting the exploration of alternative energy resources to easy our dependency on foreign oil and, he mentioned this issue in his Monday speech at Brown University.

[Guaranteed]

59. No no no. We're not discussing "talking about" something.

We're talking about a goddamned Manhattan Project for an extremely urgent, emergency issue that is currently destroying our country, economically, environmentally, and politically (with other countries).

We're not talking about a nice little "program" that may or may not suggest an idea or two about what we maybe should do in the future in order to "help out" our energy problems.

We're talking about replacing oil entirely as our primary source of fuel, as a matter of MANDATE, in order to save our country.

[IDemo]

66. Why not start with something you can do today?

Why is the obvious thing almost always ignored when it comes to discussions about energy?

Conservation. Consume less landfill-destined plastic crap from Walmart. Drive less. Turn the thermostat down in winter and up in summer. Raise a garden, and compost your kitchen scraps. Xeriscape. Recycle.

The pursuit of additional energy resources, alternative or otherwise, will certainly continue. But it cannot soon enough make the same difference as serious energy conservation could today.

[Guaranteed]

69. Totally agreed, and I always have this in mind in my home.

I do everything I can to make sure that we are consuming as little as possible.

For our own personal economic reasons, more than anything. But, yes, for all these reasons.

[blm]

82. HEY BGL - who do you THINK came up with that idea in the first place?

Geez....you all were fighting against him so damn much you missed most of what he was actually saying and proposing.

Kerry was the FIRST lawmaker to link alternative energy to national security, and the first to liken the need to focus on it just as Kennedy did the goal to land on the moon.

[KittyWampus]

54. I've Got Two Words For You "Thermal Depolymerization" :-D

shades of the movie "The Graduate".

Seriously, thermal depolymerization is real and it works. Turns ANY waste product into fuel.

[LSK]

56. I love TDP!!

Garbage and crops as fuel. 2 things America can produce in massive quantities.

[amerikat]

62. here's a primer on the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

[KittyWampus]

67. Competitors Made Bogus Complaints About Smell, Typical...

Smell complaints

The pilot plant in Carthage, Missouri was temporarily shut down due to smell complaints, but was soon restarted when it was discovered that many of the smells were not actually generated by the plant. (reported by the Kansas City Star, April 12, 2005). Furthermore, the plant agreed<4> to install an enhanced thermal oxidizer and to upgrade its air scrubber system under a court order. <5> Since the plant is located only four blocks from the tourist-attracting town center, this has strained relations with the mayor and citizens of Carthage. If it cannot be resolved, this could lead to NIMBYism, making it difficult to implement this technology widely.

Although there were complaints of a "smell" coming from the plant, complaints were still being placed even when the plant wasn't operating. The complaints stopped when the complainers were identified. Investigators are looking into the case believing that the tipsters were biofuel competitors to the TCP plant.

[CascadeTide]

65. You still have to burn stuff so it's not ideal

but certainly better than the current system we have.

[NickB79]

84. Just realize it is an oil recycler, not an oil generator

You have to produce waste to feed into it, and producing that waste uses up more oil than you get out. It is similar to any other recycling process; nothing works at 100% efficiency. It does work at recapturing oil, but it merely cushions the blow of Peak Oil. Without other sources of energy input to keep the process going, thermal depolymerization would eventually grind to a halt as less and less waste is produced by a society starved of oil.

A good solution, IMO, would be biodiesel/biomass fuels, wind power, solar power, tidal power and some nuclear reactors for primary energy sources, and thermal depolymerization plants to recapture as much lost energy as possible as a secondary energy source. The system should be carbon-neutral, slowing the advance of global warming until we figure out a way to sequester millions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere efficiently.

Biodiesel from algae and crops can be used in a plug-in hybrid vehicle, with the diesel engine kicking on only when the battery is low. Recharge overnight from the electrical grid, and you can get 100+ mpg since you run off the battery alone the first 30-40 miles of driving.

Wind in the Plains states and from offshore installations, and solar in the southwest, could supply large amounts of electricity for peak hours, and nuclear plants could maintain the power needed when the wind dies and the sun sets. Excess electricity can drive chemical plants, cracking water into hydrogen or creating synthetic fuels from carbon extracted from the atmosphere.

Waste would be fed into the TD plants to recapture some of the fuel used to produce the waste.

Something like this is a multi-decade project, however, and without immediate and widespread implementation could fail. If we hit Peak Oil when we are only halfway through building the plants and infrastructure for a truly alternative energy future, the whole thing could sputter and die. We have to start soon, or it may all be for nothing.

[Joebert]

74. The Pols need to help, but we need to do as much as we can as well.

The politicians need to push this, and push it big.

There are SO MANY ways to save money and energy now...

Shameless plug for the new Frugal and Energy Efficient Living Group at DU...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=353

We JUST got this group up and live. We're going to talk about ways we can save energy, money, everything.

The politicians need to make this happen on a state and national level, but while we wait for the corrupt to decide it's important, we can be doing our own work locally.

Please join us at the new group and post your ideas and ways of cutting energy use, using it more intelligently, etc.

Thanks!

[mzmolly]

76. We need to run with this. How bout the term "American Based Energy"

aka Ethanol for starters? Or "Patriotic Energy Solutions?"

For more info see here: http://mncorn.org/


More on Ethanol perse: http://mncorn.org/servlet/mcga/Ethanol.iml

:shrug:

[AlGore-08.com]

80. When Gore's documentary comes out, you'll see how to frame it

He lays it out beautifully.

[blindpig]

90. Gore's environmentalism

While I agree he's often out front on the issue he still doesn't get it or is afraid to say so. It is impossible to address environmental issues and maintain a growth economy and that goes double for population.

To be at peace with the Earth requires a steady state economy and a population considerably smaller than todays. The longer we take the harder it will be.

I know that's asking a hell of a lot from a member of the status quo but if you want to truly be the Environmental President that would be the harsh unvarnished message you need to deliver. Anything else is posturing and play acting.