[the1stmac]

here is my plan:

We need to take advantage of our own oil reserves, in Anwar, off the coast of california and in the gulf of mexico. Announcing this will more then likely bring down oil prices, due to the futures market. Additionaly a few oil refineries must be built that can be switched over in the future to refine other products. I also would begin building nuclear power plants, which is safe, were not russia, and technology has advanced farther then the 1979 three mile island incident. France has 70% of their energy coming from nuclear, and i havent heard them have any problems with melt downs. These will be fisson plants, but i would like to keep researching fusion as an energy source because it produces less radioactive material.

However we dont just give the oil companies the area, we lease it to them and adjust it for interest so the lease goes up with interest. This money must be set aside for funding of research into Hydrogen and other alternat energy sources, not Ethanol all Ethanol production will do is raise food prices, not a good thing for the poor, and starving. What i propose is a board of engineers and scientist specialising in alternative fuel energy. This board will meet Quartlery to decide who gets this lease money. The board will act like judges and must recuse themselves if they have conflicts of interest. They will meet and except ideas for alternate energy sources, and only if these ideas are peer reviewed and have a substantial amount of data to show plausibility, the board will choose the best ideas to get the funds, and must revisit the ideas every 18 months, if they have not shown progress and are not showing the promise they once had, those researchers loose funding.

The refineries that were intially built will be converted to refine these new alternat energy sources when one become feasible and commercially available. Tax breaks must be given to the oil companies or the owners of gas stations if they install Hydrogen pumps for instance to power cars. This allows for a future of the companies so that they will get on board with the plan, the idea being their not going to work for there own demise and they have the gas station and infrastructure too distribute this new energy source. I also propose tax cuts and incentives to begin ramping up production of vehicles and other produsts to use the new energy.

so what do you think?

[the1stmac]

Firts let me tell you were i am coming from:

I'm unsure if global warming is man made or not, i believe it has far more to do with the cycle of the sun then the 3 pecent of co2 released into the air that man makes. I do however believe that it is of grave concern that a large part of the United states comes from outside the US, and most of the world oil comes from a extremly unstable part of the world.

I do not believe in government subsidies but do believe in tax cuts or exemptions some may argue there the samething but i dont. i believe that a person or company has a right to decide how they spend their money, not the government. In other words if i want to spend my money on gas i will, if i want to concerve my money i will, i dont want the government to decide gas prices need to be lowered then subsidies gas companies to do it. however i dont think oil companies are gauging any one out of every dollar you spend on gas 6-9 cents goes to the oil companies, 40 cents goes to the government, so who is the one gauging who. A large part of why gas prices are so high is turmoil in the mideast, low refining capacity in the US, and the fact we dont take advantage of our own oil resources. And i dont care about nay sayers, people who say no that wont work with out offering an alternative.

[Crack Music]

Originally Posted by the1stmac

I'm unsure if global warming is man made or not, i believe it has far more to do with the cycle of the sun then the 3 pecent of co2 released into the air that man makes.

um explain please

[Parasite]

Originally Posted by the1stmac

We need to take advantage of our own oil reserves, in Anwar, off the coast of california and in the gulf of mexico. Announcing this will more then likely bring down oil prices, due to the futures market.

Good idea, the only problem is that the North American oil supply is on the downwards swing and can't supply America with enough oil for very long. The area opened up in Artic for example has less then one year worth of oil. This change over would have to include a shift in petroleum usage (smaller cars, less plastics, paints, some foods) or an increase in the price of the goods to drive the shift. I agree completely that it would be good if companies did use the oil that exists in those areas. The reason the companies are not is the deposits are either not very big, low quality, or very difficult to get at so they are going to cheaper production areas first. Globally we are really scraping the bottom of the oil barrel. I agree with your point of reducing dependence on external sources however.

However we don’t just give the oil companies the area, we lease it to them and adjust it for interest so the lease goes up with interest. This money must be set aside for funding of research into Hydrogen and other alternat energy sources.

This is a really interesting idea, I like the idea of a scaled lease (I can only imagine the legal fights about the rates) and the lease going into a funding system.

I also would begin building nuclear power plants, which is safe,

I have a problem with nuclear waste - we have no clue what to do with it. We like to say bury it and it will go away for ever! But that is not true; it will still be there and is still a risk for millions of years. This risk can be reduced with proper placing but we are talking about the geologic time scale here, North America will have drifted almost a 100 km west (assuming a continued rate of 10 cm per year), and South America will be coming up from the south at a high rate of speed.

The EPA has stated in their EIA that they are looking at a 1 000 000 year monitoring program and anticipate security for the site to be necessary for at least 10 000 years. The cost for the Yucca Mountain project will be 350 to 450 billion and when it is finished there will be almost 2 times the amount of waste then the Yucca can hold (Canada's disposal project is almost as bad off but the geology is a bit more cooperative). All numbers can be found in the EPA's EIA and background docs.

There are much better options for energy, starting with reduction how much power we use energy efficient fridges, stoves, building and insulating houses appropriately so we do not use air-conditioners. Solar, wind, tidal and wave energy would also be good places to look.

Man this has gotten long.... anyhow I think you have started looking in the right area, but that some of your solutions will create problems in the future that will be bigger. You are looking and that is better then most people can say so you are on the right track.

I'm unsure if global warming is man made or not, i believe it has far more to do with the cycle of the sun then the 3 pecent of co2 released into the air that man makes.

As for the climate change issue, I don't know where you are getting the 3% CO2 value (I have only seen higher) but its more then just C02, there are other gases which have a greater effect like CH4, and others. Changing to nuclear power does not reduce the production of CO2 as much as we would like because the production cost of uranium is much greater the coal or oil. Is it worth it? well yes, if we can find someway to deal with the waste that works.