Senator Stevens makes some sense but then makes a major error.  I agree with him that drilling in ANWAR makes sense if we can do it with minimum damage to the environment.  I take issue with his plan to increase millage efficiency standars for "passenger cars" while ignoring SUVs, minivans, and light trucks.  The latter is where most gasoline is used.  New CAFE standards must be enacted for ALL light vehicles.

Senator Obama's support for coal liquefaction is legitimate as long as the tedhniques used sequester the CO2 emmisions and do not use large quantities of petroleum in the process.  And this is doable.  The latest methods being considered today do take these things into consideration.  And coal is the U.S. main energy resource we have.  We should utilize it as much as we can.

And coal is the U.S. main energy resource we have.  We should utilize it as much as we can.

The unstated premise behind this conclusion is that because it's abundant, it will be cheap. But if it turns out that liquefaction coupled with sequestration gives you fuel that's much more expensive that equivalent amounts of renewable power, well, we shouldn't utilize it, should we? We should get the best bang for our buck.

That's what liquefaction and gasification supporters don't seem willing to own up to: if those processes are made environmentally benign, they will thereby be made incredibly expensive. So why bother? Why not use the time and money where they can produce more effect?

thanks very much for stopping by. It reinforces all my impressions and puts some numbers on them. Well done.

I am SO disappointed in Obama. I was really hoping that he was going to be different. That he would stand up to the special interests and not get into bed with them. I guess I hoped for too much. Maybe I should just accept that politicians are politicians and they're all the same. *sigh*

Solar is our largest energy source, then wind.  Coal is a distant third in size and we do not have a climate for burning coal.

tomorrow, we suddenly had unlimited solar power, (enough to supply even Las Vegas...LOL)? What would be the short term and longterm environmental and economic impacts of unleashing nearly "free power" to the world? (This is of course assuming that the world powers would make the technology available to all countries not on the UN's sh*t list.)

This juxtaposition of reports that Ted Stevens is doing (some of) the right things and that Barack Obama is doing (some of) the wrong things does a lot to show why a carbon tax is the way to all of the (actually positive) goals their bills are meant to accomplish: Energy independence; cleaner air; fewer emissions of greenhouse pollutants; greater use of renewables; etc.  The tax need not be so large at the outset, so long as it's recognized that the tax itself (per tonne of carbon emitted as opposed to captured) must grow, and probably exponentially, in order to produce these results.  At its inception, though, the proceeds must be devoted to research on improving the technology.  Without this devotion, it will be insufficient to the task.

Why are we spending all this effort on developing new fuels for 200+ year old technology? The internal combustion engine is a relic. If anything, we should be processing waste materials, like restaurant fats, chickens parts, etc. into "crude" until we come up with energy sources that are sustainable and non-polluting. Taking one fossil fuel and turning it into another form doesn't reduce it's terrible impact on the planet.

He has also jumped on the ethanol bandwagon, which will go nowhere.

Given that energy will be an important topic in 2008, his Republican and Democratic challengers will be able to tear him apart on this issue.  Get a clue, guy!

The safe strategy would be:

Encourage PHEVs
Encourage more Renewable Energy (RE) deployment (solar, wind)
Encourage PHEV grid connect to offset transient energy loads by RE.

  Oh PLEEZE........why are there separate catagories for the vehicles ????? Whatever "THE REASON" it cannot be good enough.
   We are Americans........We are smart .......We are inventive..........Lets demand that these problems be solved........for all these vehicles, utilities etc. Go solar. Go wind. Whatever it takes.
  Call for all large industries, corporations,etc to take heed and make them pay with their profits if they do not comply with what has to be done. Don' let them simply pass the cost on to the consumer. It is oh so much fun and so easy to sit on your laurels and collect profits beyond belief and "fiddle while Rome burns".
  Well, we ALL live here. Call them to responsibility.

I am very surprised that Dan Becker of the Sierra Club would make the suggestion that the DETAILS of the Stevens bill are not important.  I would very much beg to differ with him.  I have a funny feeling that the bill is a gesture with more bogus intentions behind it than my brain could want to imagine.  One would be that Uncle Teddy might think that sponsoring such a soft and cuddly bill will help his Oil Barron buds in the long run.  Staving off any REAL legislation that would actually have some teeth to it.  Please don't be gullible Mr. Becker.  This is another bait and switch tactic of the current administration, of which Ted Stevens is a hard-core, card-carrying member!