Democrats & Liberals Archives

Clean EDGE

President Clinton spoke recently, pointing out that global warming is a greater threat to our way of life than terrorism, “Climate change is more remote than terror but a more profound threat to the future of the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren I hope all of you have,” Clinton said. “It’s the only thing we face today that has the power to remove the preconditions of civilized society.”

President Clinton is optimistic that we can avert this catastrophe as long as we "get off our butts" and do something about it.

To make that happen, Democrats in Congress introduced the Clean EDGE Act to increase America's energy security, reduce foreign oil imports by 40%, and foster a new, more responsible transportation infrastructure that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Here are some highlights of the bill:

TRANSFORMING AMERICA'S VEHICLES & INFRASTRUCTURE

  • Flex-Fuel Vehicles: The Clean EDGE Act accelerates the conversion of American vehicles to flexible fuel technology. The legislation mandates that 25 percent of new vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2010 be flex-fuel capable, rising to 50 percent by 2020. Flexible fuel vehicles can run on higher blends of biofuels, which helps displace petroleum and provide competition at the gas pump.
  • Accelerating Infrastructure Conversion: A major barrier to using flex fuel vehicles to reduce petroleum consumption is the lack of refueling stations that provide biofuels. The Clean EDGE Act sets a national goal of installing alternative fuels at 10 percent of American gas stations by 2015. To help achieve it, the legislation will provide additional tools to individual retailers, along with support to local governments that partner with private industry to establish alternative refueling corridors in different parts of the country. In order to break the oil industry's lock on the gas pump, it also requires major integrated oil companies that own refueling stations to install alternative fuel pumps.
  • Hybrids and Advanced Vehicle Technology: The Clean EDGE Act will accelerate and extend incentives to purchase and manufacture vehicles that rely on advanced fuel efficiency technologies.

PROTECTING AMERICAN CONSUMERS & BUSINESSES

  • Preventing Gas Price Gouging and Increasing Transparency in the Oil and Gas Industry. The Clean EDGE Act makes gas price- gouging a Federal crime, enhances Federal authority to prevent and prosecute manipulation of fuel supplies and anti-competitive behavior, and increases the transparency of petroleum markets.
  • Energy Price Relief for Low-Income Americans: The Clean EDGE Act will provide additional assistance to Americans struggling under the weight of rising energy costs, by providing flexibility in Food Stamp and Section 8 Public Housing requirements, and a refundable tax credit to LIHEAP-eligible households to help cover residential energy costs.
  • Energy Emergency Loans for Farmers and Small Businesses: Volatile prices place an extra burden on businesses that operate close to the margin. The Clean EDGE Act creates disaster loan assistance through the Small Business Administration and USDA, for small businesses and farmers trying to cope with rising energy costs.

LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

  • Ending Giveaways to Big Oil. The Clean EDGE Act will revoke subsidies for profit-rich, major oil companies, and make sure they pay their fair share in royalties owed to American taxpayers for drilling on public lands and in federal waters.
  • Providing Certainty to Emerging Technologies: Rather than subsidizing the mature petroleum industry, the Clean EDGE Act will use these savings to provide greater certainty for clean energy development, by extending incentives for renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

REAL GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP FOR CLEAN AND SECURE ENERGY

  • A Serious Federal Commitment: The federal government is the single largest energy consumer in America. The Clean EDGE Act requires the Federal government reduce its petroleum consumption by 20 percent in five years and 40 percent by 2020, increase its renewable electricity use to 10 percent of total consumption by 2013, and employ advanced, efficient, and renewable technology to help drive innovation and jumpstart markets.
  • Innovative New Tools for States: The Clean EDGE Act provides enhanced bond issuing authority to states and local governments, for projects to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, to develop non-petroleum fuels, invest in efficient vehicles, alternative infrastructure and transit.

DIVERSIFYING AMERICAN ENERGY SOURCES, INVESTING IN THE FUTURE

  • Renewable Electricity. To help reduce America's reliance on fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Clean EDGE Act sets a national renewable portfolio standard requiring that 10 percent of all electricity produced in the country come from renewable sources by 2020.
  • ARPA-E. The Clean EDGE Act will create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to develop cutting- edge technologies that will reduce oil consumption, improve electricity efficiency and reliability, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Investing in American Jobs and Industry. The Clean EDGE Act will create a clean energy investment administration to help deploy new, on-the-ground solutions. It will also invest in education programs to develop a skilled domestic workforce in advanced energy technologies.

Terrorism is a deadly challenge for America, but terrorism will never threaten our way of life on the scale of global warming with its associated famine, floods, violent weather, disease, and massive population movements as whole peoples flee the worst hit regions. I am positive that if we all "get off our butts" we can moderate, or even avoid altogether the greatest long-term threat facing this country.

Scientists now believe that quick action averted the dangers associated with ozone layer depletion, and by acting quickly to curb global warming, I believe we can side-step this looming disaster as well -- and in doing so we'd also secure America against the pressures and intrigues of foreign oil producers. I hope you'll join me in urging our representatives in the House and Senate to support the Clean EDGE Act.

Posted by American Pundit at May 22, 2006 10:06 AM
Comments
Comment #150136

O.K. DEMS. YOU have finally found a war where the enemy does not fight back.Its sad but you cant even win this war because its your imagination!!No such thing as global warming its CALLED what comes around goes around!!Bill Clinton You are funnier than David Letterman HaHa

Posted by: factman at May 22, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #150146

Factman How can the democrats crawl in bed with the enemy and fight the enemy at the same time?They cant walk and chew gum at the same time.How can they out a storm system?

Posted by: jsteven at May 22, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #150165

when gas is high,oh you will see, ethanol looks real good to me. nuclear fission is almost free.
solar power beats burning tree.
wind and water,pedaling bikes,draw more power by building dikes.
when all runs out,cows methane gas,
will billow out of their fat ass,
our cars are saved so never fear,our energy policy seems very clear.

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #150171

AP,

That whole plan sounds swell, but i am curious to a few things. Where is any mention of raising minimum auto mileage standards? Without that, the whole flex fuel/ethanol deal sounds like another subsidy for farmers.

Also, how is the government going to pay for this whole “apollo-type project”? This bill calls for what i see as billions of dollars in public investment…and as we all know the government doesn’t currently have any extra money to spend. For the private sector, will the tax breaks for some of these plans provide a positive cost-benefit for investment? What if the cyclical price of oil falls and all of this high gas price jibber-jabber stops like through the 90s?

As a red column type of guy, i do agree with the contents of this bill, but i seriously doubt its feasability without an increase in CAFE standards and the price of oil staying high.

Posted by: Greg at May 22, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #150175

Greg

Oh, no, not billions of dollars! Where will we get the money to keep building bases in Iraq and South America? How will we pay for bombing Iran? Gosh, oh, dearie me.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 22, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #150176

On the other hand, I agree that the first step is to apply CAFE standards to all vehicles and make sure the cost of car fuel remains high.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at May 22, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #150179

“Oh, no, not billions of dollars! Where will we get the money to keep building bases in Iraq and South America? How will we pay for bombing Iran? Gosh, oh, dearie me.”

Mental Wimp:

I guess this country has some tough choices to make, huh?

Posted by: Greg at May 22, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #150216

Thanks for posting this, AP.
Surely the righties will now tell us how the Democrats never have any ideas?

Posted by: Adrienne at May 22, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #150231

Adrienne & AP

Most of these ideas are good. But some are better accomplished through the simpler method of price.

There certainly is no reason to subsidize oil. Cut that out and we might get a higher price, which will lead to more alternatives and conservation.

The only part I have a serious problem with is the part on protecting consumers. This will undercut the benefits of price. There really is no such thing as price gouging in a large market like ours. We don’t want to do anything to lower the price of oil. This might. Ditto the price relief for low income Americans. If we need to use less WE need to use less. I could concede a “lifeline” amount, but nothing more. If a poor guy is using 20 gallons of gas a week, maybe he should not.

I am a little suspicious of the loans. They tend to go from emergency and temporary to normal and permanent. Who among us ever has enough money if someone is willing to give us more.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #150232

BTW - let’s see if the Dems actually push the bill.

Oddly enough, I trust Bill Clinton has good motives. I am not so sure about all Dem buddies of his.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #150241

What’s up with this ethanol?I hear it’s a cleaner burning fuel and cheaper to boot.Where’s the problem?

Posted by: Theresa at May 22, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #150250

It’s still a hydrocarbon fuel, with the resulting carbon dioxide emissions. It’s also fuel that relies on growth of crops, and there probably isn’t enough of this stuff to successfully displace gasoline as a primary fuel.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #150256

Stephen

The problem with ethanol is not carbon. Presumably it could be carbon neutral if made from crops. The problem is that it takes almost as much energy to make as it gives off. The future fuel will be methanol made from chips and celulous.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #150277

Does methanol emit pollutants?Is it relatively cheaper?

Posted by: Theresa at May 22, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #150299

“I am a little suspicious of the loans. They tend to go from emergency and temporary to normal and permanent. Who among us ever has enough money if someone is willing to give us more.”


Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 03:31 PM
Hmmmm….Bush/China….China/Bush…..seems to have a note of familiarity.
But in a different vein here, what about the use of peat as fuel? There are large parts of this country sitting on peat bogs, and I’ve heard talk of that being used for feul, too. What say ye????? all of you scientific -minded posters….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 22, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #150300

Using bogs for something productive like that will most likely get a lot of objections from environmental groups

Posted by: SirisC at May 22, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #150303

Jack and stephen are both right on ethanol. yes it does burn cleaner, but the net reductions in co2 are not much less than gas,just the process in fermentation of ethanol, produces gobs of co2.the energy output is about 37% less than gas. so if you get 30mpg on gas you will get about, 23mpg on ethanol.so does cost less no. don’t drink it also, it is not the alcohol that grandfather made in a still.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 22, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #150313

Rodney seriously,kudos for the grandfather reference,nice and loose. The sad fact is that we are looking to do the same thing with a slightly different flavor. Its still soup today and soup next week. We have to get into a different mind set and that has to include hydrogen fuel cell technology. The President made me laugh when he proposed a whole billion dollars for research into this. Sure,it sounds like a lot,but this is a totally non-polluting energy source using THE MOST COMMON ELEMENT IN THE UNIVERSE. It calls for massive infusion of cash from a multinational research effort.

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #150322

I guess I’d better do some research…everyone gives different information.Makes my head spin a little:)

Posted by: Theresa at May 22, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #150328

i agree, with the hydrogen thing. but it will take some time to get that up and running even with great cash infusions.in the meantime let’s go diesel, just by itself the diesel is up to 50% more efficent than gas. i just bought a new chevy duramax diesel,i found a bio dealer and run 85% bio, and 15% diesel fuel with that combo alone ive reduced the co2 by 76%. the design of the diesel is much stronger, and the new diesels will run on just about any kind of clean fuel out there. bio, home brew, new 2007 low sulfur diesel fuel. or peanut oil , soybean oil, vegetable oil, new or used. any many more.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 22, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #150334

the strong design of the diesel will also run on gaseous hydrogen.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 22, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #150358

Just went to the NC Zoo with my daughter’s class - I noticed all of their vehicles run on veg. oil. Wow, running a car on what we would normally throw away.

Posted by: tony at May 22, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #150380

At the risk of being the last word,(I hope not)
We should be using the international space station as a jump off point to build permanent space based solar collectors. It is not only feasible with current technology,but will also make a very cool high energy directed beam. take that Star Wars!

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #150388

Nothing will do for Cheney/Bush/Jack, but ‘nukes’, and higher oil company profits…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #150419

Theresa

Methanol is on a developmental fast track. We expect it will be cheaper and easier to make methanol and the feed stocks are either waste products or benign to grow.

Take a look at this article.

Posted by: Jack at May 22, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #150423
BTW - let’s see if the Dems actually push the bill.

How would you know if the minority party in every branch of government was really “pushing” an initiative? The minority party can’t “push” anything. They have no leverage.

Put Democrats in either the House or the Senate, then we’ll see if Dems actually push the bill.

Greg, excellent points. This is more of a forward-looking bill. Other legislation has already been introduced to increase CAFE standards (with bi-partisan support, BTW), but Republican leaders in Congress won’t allow it to come up for a vote.

As for the price tag, it’s paid for by shifting tens of billions in oil industry subsidies and using additional billions in revenue gained by collecting full royalties owed for drilling on public land.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #150443

Jack, yes methanol is cleaner that ethanol,it is a simpler version of alcohol. but did you know the energy output is even less than ethanol, now instead of 30 mpg with gas, and 23 mpg with ethanol, methanol, goes down to 16 mpg. about half the mpg of gas, methanol is very corrosive, you would need aircraft stainless steel hoses, and a stainless steel tank with a inside mesh, like a race car tank, besause it is very ,very flammable, it has a very low flash point. also when on fire you can’t even see a flame or smoke. the indy race cars use it, and are going to start using ethanol.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 23, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #150457

Thanks Jack.That article linked me to info about CAFE as well.It all sounds very exciting.Rodney, is the flammability a seriously uncontrollable factor?

Posted by: Theresa at May 23, 2006 8:27 AM
Comment #150458

AP

Poor opressed Dems. Not responsible for anything as the minority party.

Didn’t they openly brag about blocking parts of the patriot act and didn’t they applaud themselves for killing SS reform?

So then, Republicans were the minority party from just after WWII until 1994. So by your logic, Vietnam, stagflation, the first energy crisis, break up of Bretton woods etc, were entirely the fault of Dems. On the other hand, I guess the booming economy since 1994 is a Republican thing. This is just silly, isn’t it?

Our system does not work like the Brits. Party discipline is weak in the U.S. It is hard to see Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi as helpless victims.

I almost hope Dems do win the House just so they will not have this excuse. ALMOST, because I know they will think of some other excuses and spend most of their time trying to impeach the president.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #150459

Theresa—-

You asked if ethanol is a hydrocarbon and still releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The answer is yes it does. HOWEVER, ethanol is produced from carbohydrates. The carbohydrates are produced by agricultural crops. The agricultural crops get the carbon that goes into the carbohydrates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Therefore, every carbon that is released from burning ethanol is replacing a carbon that was originally removed by a plant. This is what it means to be CARBON NEUTRAL.

Unfortunatly it is not quite that simple. Growing crops require oceans of diesel to run tractors as well as large amounts of energy to produce fertilizers, pesticides, fungicieds ect. Some people claim that it takes more then the equevelant of a gallon of gasoline to make a gallon of ethanol. I don’t know if this is true or not.

Currently, ethanol is produced from plant starch, which is a polymer of the sugar alpha-glucose. Scientists are currently trying to develop tecniques to produce ethanol and/or methanol from plant cellulose which is a polymer of beta-glucose. There are large amounts of cellulose in all types of agricultural waste, switchgrass, woodchips, many types of garbage and the grass on your lawn, that normally is burned or otherwise disposed of. Currently corn kernals can be converted to ethanol. The goal with cellulose ethanol is to use the entire plant.

The challenge that must be overcome is to break down cellulose to beta-glucose. The only organisms that can do that are some bacteria. Hopefully a biotech system to do that reaction will be developed soon.

Posted by: montanademocrat at May 23, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #150460
Didn’t they openly brag about blocking parts of the patriot act and didn’t they applaud themselves for killing SS reform?

They couldn’t have done it without Republican help.

As for the rest, you just sidestepped the issue. How does the minority party “push” something through Congress? Congressional rules allow the minority party to obstruct the most egregious abuses of majority party power, but they can’t schedule votes on legislation.

Frankly, Jack, your opposition to our country’s energy security is troubling.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #150471

Its good to see that the energy level in this discussion has not flagged. Rodney says he agrees with ultimate hydrogen cell use,but feels its too far in the future. On the contrary,I saw GM buick pilot projects being run on hydrogen as long as 7 years ago. Burning fossil fuels is just not a realistic way to go long term. The largest problem in utilizing hydrogen is not in the developement,but in the creation of an infrastructure that will support its use nationally. Democrats, who have always been the progressive party,should spearhead the neccesary legislation.

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #150472
Democrats, who have always been the progressive party,should spearhead the neccesary legislation.

jblym, we’re trying. A bill to do what you described was introduced by Democrats last year (S.665), and was promptly ignored by Republicans. They never allowed it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #150473

AP

They can’t push it through congress, but they can - if they believe in it - advocate it and get support of others. I suspect that they have no intention of this becomming reality. It is a ploy. They put out this things (which mostly sounds good) because the KNOW they won’t have to do anything about it. In fact, they will do as you just did. So the question is, if they think there is no chance of it happening, why claim it?

Jblym

Higher prices and nuclear energy. That is pretty much all the policy you need. The higher prices will encourage alternatives and conservation. Nuclear energy will pick up the slack that otherwise will be filled by coal. Most of the rest is merely commentary.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #150479
It is a ploy.

Sez you.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #150483

I can put that better:

Jack, all of these Democratic initiatives have some Republican co-sponsors. If the Republican leadership were to allow these bills to come up for debate and amendments, you’d see bipartisan support.

You, on the other hand, are touting a gas price hike. That’s something that has no political support and absolutely no chance of happening. If you want to point fingers at ploys, look in the mirror while you do it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #150490

AP

Gas prices MUST rise. Until we recognize that, there will be no solution. Everything we claim to do about energy will lead to higher prices, otherwise it won’t work. I keep repeating this because so many people are just playing games with this issue, pretending that there is some secret plan or magic solution. Implying that we could turn goat piss into gasoline if only the big oil would allow it.

We use oil because it is the cheapest and easiest alternative to fuel our cars and trucks. It is not a mistake or a stupid choice. There are other problems with oil, but as long as it remains the cheapest and easierst choice we will not address those.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #150502
Gas prices MUST rise

Jack, gas prices WILL rise — but not quickly enough. Energy security and global warming are not market problems; they’re national security problems.

We use oil because it is the cheapest and easiest alternative to fuel our cars and trucks.

The price of gas is not the determining factor. Just as we wouldn’t hire cheap mercenaries rather than train expensive US soldiers to protect our country, we must not be constrained by the price of energy security.

We subsidize the oil industry to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year. If we were to refocus that money on commercializing homegrown alternatives and infrastructure rather than foreign oil, then those alternatives would become cheaper.

We have the means — and, I suspect, the political will, if Republican leaders would even allow debate on the issue — to transform our energy economy right now. Americans are beginning to recognize the danger of relying on foreign oil, and if Republicans don’t stop obstructing efforts to secure America’s future, they’re going to get run over.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 23, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #150510

>>I almost hope Dems do win the House just so they will not have this excuse. ALMOST, because I know they will think of some other excuses and spend most of their time trying to impeach the president.

Posted by: Jack at May 23, 2006 08:57 AM

Impeaching this President would not be a waste of time, it would be an obligation and the right thing to do. It won’t happen though, us Dems don’t have the guts for it. It takes a group of ‘holier than thou’ Repubs to singularly focus on such a project.

Posted by: Marysdude at May 23, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #150542

I agree that gas prices must rise dramatically to encourage real conservation,with a resultant additional tax on companies who are profiteering. However is seems to me that by not actively,agressively seeking realistic alternative measures to run our energized economy,our elected representatives are themselves a real and present danger to national security. Leaving us the choice of pandering to enemies or dubious friends to slake our oil thirst is wrong. Congress,Mr.President,I am asking you to do your jobs. Secure this countries well being not only for me but for our posterity. You guys need to read some Churchill speeches. You know the one ablut “we will fight them on the beaches….

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #150543

I agree that gas prices must rise dramatically to encourage real conservation,with a resultant additional tax on companies who are profiteering. However is seems to me that by not actively,agressively seeking realistic alternative measures to run our energized economy,our elected representatives are themselves a real and present danger to national security. Leaving us the choice of pandering to enemies or dubious friends to slake our oil thirst is wrong. Congress,Mr.President,I am asking you to do your jobs. Secure this countries well being not only for me but for our posterity. You guys need to read some Churchill speeches. You know the one about”we will fight them on the beaches”….

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #150547

jblym, i said i agree with you on hydrogen, did you see any other posters agree with you,I take the removal of co2 as a challenge, and i like challenges, i got of my duff and I paid $45,000 for a multi fuel flexible vehicle that is available today. and using %100 pure, green and clean, and classified as non flammible and biodegrable, BIO DIESEL. and with a strong and very efficient motor the diesel, have removed 75% of the co2. and it gets 50% better mileage than a gas motor. 75% better mileage than a ethanol motor, and 100% better mileage than a methanol motor.it also wont ruin the groundwater. like ethanol and methanol will. and here mr and mrs joe sixpack are the keys to your new methanol car that gets 15 mpg and costs $50,000 and will expire at 75,000 miles, and btw i cant tell you the price of the fuel, because we dont know yet. woodchips, well the wood industry already uses most all of the woodchips.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 23, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #150556

Rodney,I appreciate the fact that you have done your homework. I don’t dispute that diesel is and will be one of the most efficent ways to burn plant based fuels. But is it still better than having the majority of people who drive less than 5 miles drive electric cars? Aren’t you better off leaving the power plant at home and going to the mall on cheaper mass produced electricity? Let the government legislate NO sales taxes on both the purchase of electric cars and the raw materials needed to produce them. This will be the catalyst in a green dream to lower toxic gases

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #150564

Thanks for the info montanademocrat.I really have a bunch of stuff to look up.If anyone knows of any good sites to check out say so.

Posted by: Theresa at May 23, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #150570

jblym, well the all electric car will run about 45 miles in the city before a recharge. then you have to plug it in to a outlet and let it recharge all night, then the electric company that burns coal and fossil fuel to provide the recharge, puts more co2 and crud in the air .than you would have saved driving the all electric car,now if we provide a solar panels to recharge the batteries during the day and possibly a tiny little 2 horsepower bio diesel motor, to recharge the batteries at night you could drive it all the time! anywhere!.you know the costs will go down with production bingo! . i am starting to like how you think.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 23, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #150578

Rodney,plants run day and night but the draw on them is substantially less at night. Dare I say,nuclear power plants give the biggest bang for the buck. A grid system of fiber optic like cables capable of carrying real energy could be strung throughout the U.S. a la the highway system project in the 30’s from sunny states. Arizona,New Mexico.etc. Current solar panel production would enable 100’s of gigawatts to be shipped with almost no loss in transmission.Cheap solar energy for the whole country. Plug em in folks!

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #150590

ok my friend, i am with you. let’s take some deep breaths. and get the public on board,and big business, and washington dc.and we are up against some folks that dont like those ideas.but it can be done.with the right bully pulpit.and this is not about politics, it is about our future.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 23, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #150598

Thank Goodness! only 299998000 more people to convince.

Posted by: jblym at May 23, 2006 5:12 PM
Post a comment