I disagree. It may be the case that the end products (i.e., the fuels) are somewhat cleaner, but the entire process is not. Think about it… how could it be? Short of employing carbon capture and storage (which doesn't exist on a commercial scale), that makes no sense. Even in terms of “traditional” pollutants (i.e, non GHG crud like heavy metals, complex organics, sulfur compounds and the like), we're better off burning coal in a power plant and charging batteries.

That's one thing. The other thing is that the more coal is tied to liquid fuel production the more the price will be as well. Look at tar sand development — that uses lots of natural gas, and natural gas prices are now heavily influenced by oil prices. Look at corn and bioethanol, too. Both processes require lots of water, too, but that's another rant.

Speaking of coal… the amount of surface area devoted to coal strip mining (which was mostly deciduous forest before they started stripping it) is already larger than the amount of surface area required to power our entire national grid with solar thermal (assuming no improvements in existing technology). Likewise, the tar sand mines in Alberta has denuded an area of arboreal forest nearly the size of the state of Florida (again, larger than the surface area required to power our entire national grid with solar thermal) — not to mention generating highly toxic tailing ponds large enough to be seen from space. And no one has yet to figure out how to deal with them.

Having said that, I can't stress enough that systems approaches are absolutely essential. The stakes are very high, and because they are we are susceptible to making huge mistakes unless the entire “life cycles” of various alternatives are fully analyzed. We're in a real fix here, and there's no easy way out as far as I can tell. In fact, I would say that energy is the challenge of our time. And global warming concerns don't make it any easier.

It's not just that. While we require petroleum for transportation fuels, petroleum is the base stock for so much of the chemical (and petrochemical) industry. In fact, while there is no current alternative, so it is done, it is a shame the stuff is simply burned rather than used for those other uses. Those other uses also justify the drilling.

Experience tells us they won't necessarily come fast (a “drastic overhaul” of our current energy supplies and uses is impossible), but experiences with wind shows that the refinements can come, and where it's a matter of refinement, it can be a fully private endeavor but at the same time it becomes more attractive than ever as the object of government expenditure on research and development.

Wind energy obviously is not just at the toy stage any longer. Evil Bird Killers [tm] like Chris who are wind fans can even gloat. It's no substitute yet for most of our electricity production needs (”just over 1% of U.S. electricity supply”), but it is nothing like it was in the 1980s or the 1990s.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/4...

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/2008_Market...

http://www.awea.org/AWEA_Annual_Rankings_Report...

Where else to put it?

http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/

All renewables (western USA)

http://www.energyatlas.org/

I absolutely, positively agree. And the Dems should push that deal as hard as they possibly can. You mention one side of the politics involved — those that are dead-set against a move to alternative energies. You can see it in some of the comments here — the belief that alternative energies are largely still just toys. That is not true. Wind is exploding. There are almost 150 applications already in the pipeling for new solar plants. Nevada is planning a major expansion in their geothermal production. This stuff is not just toys. Granted, solar (either thermal or PV), and geothermal are not as “proven” as, say, nuclear. But I would say that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Wind and geothermal are already more than competitive in price with nuclear, and solar is rapidly getting there. And in no case are there any major technical hurdles left to cross. It's all a matter of refinement. And in that regard, there is every reason to believe that those refinements will come fast. Moreover, the amount of potential there is, well, breathtaking. All of those technologies have considerable potential to get bigger (utility scale) AND smaller (rooftop/backyard scale) — and enhance their efficiencies many times over in both directions. And there is so much money in it! It kinda makes me weep that my more conservative friends can't seem to see that. IMO, we need to jump on this hard, because to the victors go the spoils. Sure it's going to take some investment. But the potential payoff is enormous.

I am firmly convinced of that potential. However, I cannot prove it. How can you ever “prove” anything if you don't build it? In fact, that goes for new nuclear plant designs, too. And yet there are some that are all gung-ho about the latter while virtually ignoring the former. So that's one side of the political debate.

On the other side are those that believe enhancing domestic drilling is the greatest evil since Satan was driven from heaven. And IMO, that's ridiculous too. I hear arguments to the effect, “it makes no sense to cure our oil addiction by feeding it”. It's a compelling metaphore but it's wrong. The fact is; (a) curing our oil addiction will take time; (b) in and of itself, enhancing our domestic supply will have essentially no effect on either prices OR our addiction to oil. We can always get our fix elsewhere — and the price of that fix is almost certainly to be modulated by factors beyond our control; (c) not withstanding (b), enhancing domestic supply cannot help but have a direct impact on the trade deficit, energy security, tax revenues, and jobs; (d) if you agree with the argument that more domestic drilling will not appreciably affect the price of oil, it also stands to reason that it won't delay the transition to something else. So in short, by “allowing” domestic drilling in a responsible way, we are not really feeding our addiction. Rather, we are helping to cure other things that ail us without having any impact at all on our addiction. That's how I see it anyway.

This goes beyoind anyone's energy policy. It's a question of our economic structure and how energy fits inot it. McCain's bandaids don't address that except as they revert to the conservative policies of the past.
The future is a new day, and the rut we've been in requires an urgent overahul.

I don't doubt that this can be a political advantage for McCain. I'm convinced his victory woudl be a loss for our energy future.

And don't forget coal, of which we have much, much, much. Converting coal to gasoline and diesel fuel and other fuels is the logical short-to-medium-term thing that should be first on any rational agenda. Not only are the fuels cleaner (which reduces air pollution) but it buys time to pursue alternatives.

“as long as the affected states have the final say”

Obama would be hailed as a genius by a media that “rediscovered federalism,” the same media ignoring that same position already expressed by McCain, who does not count in the media's eyes (because he's not their darling this year).

(McCain said this when he visited the GM Tech Center in Warren Michigan.)

Although it has been reported at least once …

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/m...

I tend to agree. And if he adds, “as long as the affected states have the final say”, I think he could seriously deflate whatever momentum McCain has.

Its not going to get any better tomorrow, next week or next year. Electric cars even if they all come on line today they can only produce mabey 100k this year this year…..1 more million next year……..not enough to do anything other then make electricity go up.

I agree that this is true as far as reality/energy policy goes. They aren't either/or. But as far as politics goes, they really might be. There are many powerful people dead set against a move in the next few decades to alternative energies. It's very likely that the only way for them to come on board is by making a deal. You vote for solar thermal in the Mojave and I'll vote for oil platforms off Florida. If you give up the drilling now, they will simply sit or say no on the alternatives for a while again.

All Obama has to say is that he is willing to consider some new drilling “where it makes sense” (taking care in his usual way not to explain the meaning of that phrase) and it's behind him. The Dems in Congress should be the same way.

Obama claims that lifting the federal moratorium will delay our transition away from oil. I don't see how that figures, either. If it doesn't affect price the motivation will still be there. It's not an either/or kind of thing. In the mean time though, any increase in domestic production will help to reduce the trade deficit, increase revenue, and add jobs.

There are other aspects to both candidate's energy plans of course. But the drilling issue is the one that is providing McCain some traction. So that's the one Obama (and Dems in general) have to address. I think it may be hard, because the “drill here, drill now, pay less” argument has considerable emotional appeal, even if it's not accurate.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/rpd/topfields.pdf

Demanding no additional openings at all is acting against the US's interests.

No laughter at his jokes. No applause following any of his major lines or pauses, except for pathetically soft applause _once_. Otherwise, no response (i.e., no warm reception) at all.

The unions in Michigan probably want a president Obama to bail out their companies, exactly the wrong, worst thing that ever should be contemplated.

McCain flirted with global warming and alternative energy and transportation when he gave a speech at the GM Tech Center recently here in Detroit metro, in Warren. It was broadcast on local radio and there was nearly _zero_ response to McCain's appeal to union members and left-leaning audience members about plans for the future. Why would these people vote for someone acting merely as a Dem Lite when they can vote for the real thing (and even get a bailout and perpetuate their obsolete model and standard of living, or engineer a lavish quasi-CEO-style buyout program for the superfluous rank and file)?

You just reinforce my point that Obama has nothing. Nothing to address the oil crunch and energy prices at the pump. So until you can come up with something to debate then calling me a liar is not helping your cause and is focusing more attention to what I say.

He has nothing. The democrats WILL NOT DRILL. So what…………..give tax breaks to buy gasoline till 2015? Run up an even larger DEBT? Why don't we just merge with China and let them run our country? Pretty soon they will own it all anyways.

If the Unions in Michigan realize that Barak Obama's energy policy consists of “WALKING TO WORK”

Awww…. running out of true things to say these days, Neocon?