Verified answer

I think you are on to something - and I believe America is perfectly capable of doing it.

It can't possibly be any more challenging than putting a man on the moon in '69 - and with 40 year old technology.

At almost $5 a gallon for heating oil and diesel fuel and $4 a gallon for gas, I can't think of a better time to start then right now.

Although I am definitely a democrat, if you go back and watch the previous 5-6 state of the union addresses you will see that even President Bush is on the same page as you, although not quite on the same scale. Also, he has not submitted the sort of funding that would be required in any of his budgets. Before we can fund a project like that we would have to cut into our budget somewhere else, like the Iraq war.

Other conservatives that stand beside you include T. Boone Pickens, who proposes that we invest in wind power for electricity and use that to replace natural gas for heating so that we can use natural gasses as a primary fuel source. With moderates like Schwarzenegger pushing for energy independence, and Both presidential candidates getting on board (Obama seemingly more so than McCain whose biggest idea seems to be off-shore drilling which is already too divisive to be successful) and liberals like Al Gore all working toward a similar goal I expect some sort of major breakthrough in the next 6-10 years, whether it comes from government grants to do research on viable cellulosic ethanol (switchgrass) or increased Nuclear energy or clean coal technologies or increased solar, wind and water energy or a combination of all of these. I believe both parties want to help fund the research, but the arguments are going to remain what stays on the table, what comes off the table and how much funding the project(s) will receive.

There is no immediate identifiable enemy other than us. In a democracy perhaps there would need to be more nearly a consensus that this it the right way to go. We have gotten out of love with having government do everything for us. And we have already created the Hypercar, but failed to deploy it even though it could cut fuel usage by a factor of 4 with no reduction, or cut by a factor of 8 if we all cut our distance travel led in half. We are able to build hypercar and run it on energy that comes only from the USA and is now available. However, it would take a decade to decide to do it, and another decade to deploy it if we were of a mind to do so.

I'd prefer it happen in the private sector. Unlike space travel or nuclear weapons, this is a product that once completed would have to be sold to the public. I don't want government in that business.

Now, massive tax breaks and other economic incentives for firms engaging in such research would be an idea I'd support. I agree with your point that the technology is an obstacle we can overcome in a short time if we wholly dedicate ourselves to the problem and invest in good old fashioned American know how.

Plus, when we succeed it will solve the economic woes as such a breakthrough in a high demand field would lead to increased exports and a rocketing stock market.

Perhaps....but keep in mind a couple of things:

-Every advancement we have made to date has been on the backs of burning stuff we dig up or playing with atoms....both of which are considered negatives today.

-The fact that no great advancement has been made does not mean that no one in the private or government sector has been actively seeking one. A discovery like this would make any person a billionaire and any government THE global power....

-Each time the "next" energy source has been supposedly discovered (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, cold fusion....etc.). Very real problems with actually making that alternative a reality have been found as well.

You also have to look at your objectives.....are you looking for something cheaper? Considering the global economy is still driven by internal combustion, that's probably not going to happen with any of the promised alternatives.

Are you looking to save the environment? Great....but at what price? What are you personally willing to give up in return for this "new" technology? Biofuels mean less food....Windmill farms mean less land for farming and wildlife....and all the while, you're still going to have to use oil to fund the ships and trains that drive the global economy.

Could you go without eating for a few months while you researched a new type of food? Would you ask developing nations to just please go on starving for another decade or so for the good of Mother Earth...?

Much of the "rage" about the lack of alternatives seems to ignore the fact that there will be no easy solution....

yes they should !

they may actually have grants out for such, though i wouldn't doubt the majority of govt support goes to weapons technology.

funny, there is a community (in AZ i think) trying to build alternative housing that is self-sustaining. you have no idea the trouble they faced in bureaucracy.

it took a lot for the guy to finally get a law passed to consider it experimental architecture, so they could continue their project.

see, such things as alternative fuel or housing et al will take the $$$ out of the fat pockets of our current options (oil and electric) so they will fight it tooth and nail.

this is where i get a little liberatarian.. way too much govt telling us what we can do and how we can live.

As long as Georgie is in the office and continues to have vested interest, along with his father, friends, and colleagues, they aren't going to do anything. The Bushs' rely on oil and their stock in oil.

Halliburton Corp.(world's largest oil field services company) their former chairman and chief executive is non other than Dick Cheney!!

The nations where Halliburton does business include oil-producers such as Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran, Libya, and Russia.

Cheney sees nothing wrong with lucrative investments in these places, even though Iran and Libya remain on the State Department's list of terrorist states. As Halliburton's chairman and CEO, Cheney earned a $1.3 million salary, plus bonuses that varied to $2 million.

When Cheney resigned from Halliburton to run with Bush he received a $20 million parting gift. Halliburton's board WAIVED a requirement that Cheney would lose many of his stock options if he left before age 62.

And, hell, named an oil tanker after Condeleeza Rice!

So, alternative fuels aren't going to be any where in the near future until Bush is done. His family along with Cheney are enjoying every bit of $$ and we are going to freeze to death this winter.

I totally agree with the guy that said to have someone from the private sector do it. Some logic: If you tell a govt and a corp to work on the same friggin project, the govt would end up spending 10X more than the corp and be well behind schedule.

Yes, but in a fair environment where by we pay for the pollution we emit, Private Enterprise would be very competitive in terms of alternative energy.

I agree with you and not only would this be helpful in terms of energy and national security, but for the economy and also in terms of improving the health of our citizens

Sure, just try to get congress to actually act on something though. Remember they have to fund it and they are too busy playing politics to actually work right now.