New Poll: 81% of Americans Support Greater Use of Domestic Energy Resources In pursuit of the immediate goal of energy security, clear majorities of Americans of every political and ideological stripe advocated the U.S. tap into its voluminous domestic energy resources, including the oil located off its coasts and in Alaska and the coal deep within its grounds. Clean coal was particularly popular and Americans urged the swift building of zero emissions coal plants. While the media and the President focus on the oil production of OPEC and how the U.S. might influence or compel that output, Americans prefer a greater use of domestic energy sources and an innovation-encouraging tax policy that rewards businesses for new energy solutions. While there were some political and ideological differences, for the most part, Americans stood united in favor of a smart, practical energy policy that would allow them to drive to work and power their homes without breaking their bank accounts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Highlights from the survey, fielded May 29 - June 1, 2008: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Which of the following plans of action do you MOST support to lower energy prices for U.S. consumers? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry the people want to become energy independent as soon as possible, that requires using our own, oil, and coal, and re-establishing our nuclear industry. Now, the big plus, is that they are mature energy sources, and the infrastructure is in place to use them today, all we need is for congress, the Democrats and RINOs to get out of the way and open up the resources that are avalable in this country. Name your Eco friendly energy source, that is mature enough to replace 10% of the energy needs of America today, and has the infrastructure to deliver that energy to industry, or to the transportation sector. The people know when they have been sold a bill of goods, and congress and the environmentalist have sold a bill of good to America for the last 50 years.
tidal energy i believe is mature enough to pull it off. but not the infstructure manly because the oil and coal people lobby to block funding for eco friendly sources. although it would be expensive the eastern and western sea boards the gulf coast, the great lakes, and the mississippi together could probably hit the 10% mark. which getting energy that way would mean our coal and oil reserves would last longer because we would use less of them. tidal energy is not means to replace coal and oil plants but a way to make them last longer
The Great Lakes are not affected by tidal forces, niether is the Mississippi River. The only thing being block is the ability to use our own oil, coal, resources, and build and relicense, nuclear power plant, and that is by the Eco Nuts, and the Democrats and RINO in congress. Tidal energy is not a means to extend anything.
the great lakes do have currents in them which a tidal power generator can harness. same with the mississippi. don't knock it simply because it is eco friendly and you can't stand the idea of being ecofriendly.
Sorry to disapoint you but coal fired energy plant have the infrastructure to deliver the energy that they generate to industry and the nation, just look arounf when you drive down the highway, those High Lines, and the towers and poles that support them. This is how France delivers energy from their Nuclear Power Plants, does it look familiar? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This is just out side a coal fired plant in the U.S. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Never said they did, but they are mature energy delivery systems, just as Nuclear Power is. The can deliver the Gigawattage nessary to power the industrial sector of America. Total U.S. electricity generation was 4,054,688 gigawatt in 2004. Power from the Sun: Solar, Hydro and Wind Total now 74 Gigawatts worldwide. Not enough world wide to replace 10% of the U.S. energy needs.
I meant the infrastructure to handle the waste, CO2 and mercury scrubbing, etc. Likewise nukes. If you're going to build a bunch of generating plants, why not build heat engine solar ones ? Save the trouble of decommissioning the nukes, etc., a lot cheaper in the long run.
gigawattage from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and hydroelectric combined in the us 38.14 Petroleum Coke Fueled Boiler=4.64 gigawatts Oil Fired Boiler=.78 gigawatts Nuclear Power=78.7 gigawatts Natural Gas Fueled Boiler=15.9 Diesel Generators=1.38 Incinerators=1.23 Fuel Oil=.85 Combustion Turbine Generators=14.7 Combined Cycle Natural Gas=50.5 Coal Fired Boilers=199.5
I have to agree with this assessment. I know this sounds like a magic wand solution, but consider the dollars spent in Iraq -- what at least $200 billion? -- how much would it cost to totally convert the USA to non-carbon energy production? Would it even cost even half? Figure the cost of building another 30-50 more nuclear power plants as well as funded research into new energy sources as well as investments in well known alternatives such as: The Cape Wind Project which was opposed by DEMOCRAT Eddi Kennedy because it would obstruct his view. How much clean energy could come from there? Solar arrays that could be built on the rooftops of thousands of buildings all over the southern USA, at no cost to the business, but permitting the maximum dispersion of the panels. This excludes panel farms that could be built all over the desert. One company is already pioneering this idea to great benefit for itself and the power company: Kohl's. Tidal power plants that could be built in the northeast and northwest where the tidal currents have the greatest ebb and flow. Would all this cost more than $200 billion? Would it not be worth the cost right now to American tax payers? How much are we hemorrhaging through petrol powered electricity plants now because of our lack of foresight? ~String
Whatever happened to that "clean coal" bullshit? Is there even one operational plant that doesn't produce carbon emissions?
Guess what, you Haven't been able to build a coal fired plant since 1977 Congress passed a new Clean Air Act that essentially mandated that all new coal-fired power plants install scrubbers. Your behind the times again. What about France? They derive 80+% of their electrical power from nuke. Why decommission a nuclear plant? the only reason that we have decommissioned any nuclear power plant today is because the Congress, Democrat's, RINO's, and the Environmental Lobby have stopped the nuclear plants from renewing their licenses. Where? and how long, and will the environmentalist let you, will the Kennedy's let you? Why has no other country done so? Could it be because it isn't ready? Not mature enough to generate the needed energy
probably because other countries don't have people like you in them and the built up other eco friendly power sources.
Your list doesn't add up to the Total U.S. electricity generation of 4,054,688 gigawatt,s which is needed to run this country. And isn't 10% of that.
Buffalo: forget about it. Democrats hate life and therefore hate energy. The only oil drilling Democrats support is that of their Al Qaeda allies in Saudi Arabia and Iran.
pjdude1219 adressing OilIsMastery Now with statement's like this, We know who sounds, sound less and less intelligent. There are no tide's in the Mississippi, or the Great Lakes.
