Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
We were talking about solar and wind and ocean currents, etc. Not viable as of now, not likely to be soon.
I agree that cars could certainly conserve much more. Conservation in general has promise.
Oil shale is currently plentiful, yet exactly as you mention inneficient at the moment. I'm more interested in working on that then the above choices, that has potential to be a realistic option. IN the same mindset, Ethanol needs some tech help and should be viable SOON.
HYdrogen, sounds great.

Dubya's and Repubs plan is the realistic one. Nuke plants NOW, LOTS of them, and Drill Anwar and ICS. I will repeat, this is the ONLY REASONABLE energy plan. Anything not centered on these two things is pie in the sky.
That is the plan that allows the developing technologies to, ya know, develop.... Until they develop, we are stuck financing terrorism. THe libs have no issue with this whatsoever. I do. I want energy available here and now.
Connies have the same energy plan as libs.... PLUS drilling in ANWAR, and ICS, Fozens of Nuke plants, and oh yeah, no regressive taxation. Nobody is suggesting avoiding the developing technologies you speak of, but that investment MAY pay off in as little as 20 years... Let's look a bit shorter term then that as well...
Agree on the shorter term comment.... We need at least temporary solutions now. I was reading about advancements on the nuclear waste disposal issue. It seems they are developing a way to render the waste unharmful. If so, I can't see either side taking issue with nuclear power.