Comments on: SOTU: Switch Grass and Clean Coal

By: Gregory

Gregory — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:51:51 +0000

Of course now the White House is backing off of the statement. Energy Secretary Bodman says that when the prez pledged to “move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past,” he really didn’t mean it. “This was purely an example,” the Secretary is reported as saying. The broad goal was to displace foreign oil imports, from anywhere, with domestic alternatives, which sounds like another pushing to open up ANWR is in the works.

Asked why the president used the words “the Middle East” when he didn’t really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that “every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.” The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble. Hmmmm …

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:57:30 +0000

Does the title of this blog really say “switch grass and CLEAN COAL”? Even though the technology exists to burn coal more efficiently and without emitting all the nasty pollutants, you still have to cut mountains in half to get to it. I have a feeling Montana will look very very different in 20 years. I realize we need fuel, cellulosic ethanol is the way to go at this stage in the game. Coal is not “clean” and not sustainable.

By: Tom C

Tom C — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 06:52:47 +0000

Ignore his words, watch his actions. Bush thrives on lies and deception. Don’t be fooled by yet another of his feel good speeches designed to serve as nothing more than an attempt to restore his deteriorated approval ratings. He, his administration and the majority of republican members of the US congress will say or do anything to perpetuate or increase their power.

The only certainty is that Bush will continue to operate for the next three years as he has for the last five. Is anyone really so naive as to expect him to change? The key to understanding Bush’s messages is to realize that his words are merely “grand promises” to borrow Japhet’s phrase. But his promises have no substance, and meanwhile all life on our planet suffers and the downward spiral of our ecosystem continues to accelerate.

It doesn’t have to be that way though. A good first step would be to remove Bush and his administration from their position of lethal power. For a start, have a look at http://www.ImpeachBush.org which I just learned of two days ago on CSPAN.

Don’t wait until we reach the point of no return. Act while we still have a choice.

By: eileen barry

eileen barry — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 02:40:12 +0000

Talk is easy…generating intelligent actiions takes commitment. Mr. Bush has indicated no plan of action, requested no consideration from the Replican majority in Congress,. In order to elect a Democratic majority, our Democratic representatives and senators must voice their plans and raise their voices in unison and with energy and insight!

By: Somer

Somer — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:30:38 +0000

We all know that the first step in addiction is admitting we have a problem, and finally George Bush has done that. But I find it interesting that Bush is talking about being addicted to oil considering he is making more money off of this addiction than any other politician out there and Exxon just reported profits of over 10 billion dollars, yes that’s billion. In addition when you talk about breaking an addiction, we're not just talking about one drop, we're talking about the whole barrel. Bush said: Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. The truth is that Persian Gulf oil is currently only a little over 10% of total US consumption, meaning he's talking about replacing only 8% of US oil supply with other sources. Currently we are getting most of our oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. Which means that, surprise, Bush is just making another empty promise. It sounds to me that Bush needs a 12-Step program to break his addiction to oil so we can get all get off the whole barrel.

By: Felix Kramer

Felix Kramer — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:05:07 +0000

It turns out that while Bush didn’t mention plug-in hybrids in his speech, the Advanced Energy Initiative does include a substantial focus on PHEVs, which we at CalCars consider a major buzz breakthrough. We’re not under any illusions that much more than a call for more research when we actually need steps to bring products to market using already developed technology, but it does add important legitimacy to the strategy of using electric PHEVs for local travel, E85 for long trips. So we’re encouraged….Find links at calcars.org to the White House documents and further comments and discussion.

By: G. Martin

G. Martin — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:36:19 +0000

It’s nice to hear Bush throwing this into his State of the Union. At the very least, it may help reframe the debate. Holding him to his promises will probably be next-to-impossible, but at least this might make it easier to discuss energy solutions without being cast as a crazy radical. We should all take advantage of it.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:12:04 +0000

Theresa asks if there’s anything wrong with running on country on oil – my answer is a resounding YES! If it isn’t the middle east, it’s africa. And if it isn’t foreign oil, it’s our federal lands, coastlines and the arctic national wildlife refuge. I for one do not want an oil pipeline or refinery in my backyard; in this country we do have fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our oil addiction is already denying these rights to people who suffer from asthma and the health effects of pollution, or to the military families living with the nightmare of a war for oil.

So if nobody should have to live with the consequences of oil, then it’s time to end our dependence on oil, plain and simple. And that means action plans, not promises from our oil-friendly president.

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:22:19 +0000

I for one am just glad to hear him say it. I don’t have huge expectations for this administration to actually tackle the looming ecologic/economic crisis of the end of oil, but to acknowledge it at all feels like a big win. Even from Big Oil, there’s consensus that we’re running out. With California’s recent $2.9B solar plan, and reports that the green energy boom will actually jumpstart the economy, I do believe we are turning the corner on this issue.

By: spark

spark — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:53:00 +0000

Pretty interesting that Bush declares we need to be liberation from oil as Exxon posted a 40% increase in profits and Halliburton, an oil services company, posted their most profitable year in their 86 year history. Of course, he didn’t mention how his corporate cronies are making bank off the backs of American consumers and Iraqi blood.

It also sucks what they did to Cindy Sheehan as she tried to go in..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0201-01.htm

By: Gordon

Gordon — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:50:10 +0000

What I was shocked to hear was a brief mention of the words “wind” and “solar”. However, even dramatic uses of these clean energy sources will NOT have any appreciable short term impact on oil consumption, except in the NE where fuel oil is still used for home heating. The same applies to increased nuclear energy production (which of course has its own environmental problems). All of these can supplant coal, which is even more polluting than oil, but is readily available domestically — all that’s required is strip- and mountain-top removal mining!

What we need is a gradually introduced and continually rising carbon tax that raises the prices of all fossil fuels, thus making solar, wind, ground-based geothermal, biodiesel, etc. more attractive (nuclear will be too, and I’m not sure what to do about that). We also need plug-in hybrids. As a hybrid owner and fan, I’d love to be able to plug my Prius in at night to charge using the electricity generated by solar cells on my garage! Even more than that, I’d love to see most of my neighbors who don’t particularly care about the environment doing it in order to save money!

By: Japhet

Japhet — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:29:00 +0000

BK…
Good point. I did a little research on plastics and the amount of oil they consume. I got this little quote from http://www.answers.com:
Also, the manufacturing of plastics often creates large quantities of chemical pollutants, and requires use of the Earth’s limited supply of fossil fuels. However, it should be noted that plastics only consume 4% of the world’s oil production. Furthermore, it can be claimed that the use of plastics helps the environment by saving water and oil. For example, plastics make cars lighter, thus saving oil and reducing CO2 emissions.
I guess the bottom line is, the amount of oil used in our transportation sectors is so much greater than what is used to create plastics that companies like Ford Motor Co. and ExxonMobil are lower hanging fruit…in the sense that turning those companies around would really make an impact on oil usage worldwide.

By: Teresa Chapman

Teresa Chapman — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:58:37 +0000

Is there really anything wrong with running our country on oil?
NO, of course not…its our foreign dependency that has us captivated. The question lies on how are we going to cut our foreign oil sources and make enough oil from our own homeland. Then, what are we going to do in the meantime that will help American’s deal financially with the issue at hand – the cost of fuel NOW!! It is costing businesses thousands of dollars a month, not to mention annually, that is breaking the backs of those that are trying to stay alive.

The government incorporated this move on MTBE, it wasn’t the answer – Some areas of the country are required to use special gasolines. Environmental programs, aimed at reducing carbon monoxide, smog, and air toxics, include the Federal and/or State-required oxygenated, reformulated, and low-volatility (evaporates more slowly) gasolines. Other environmental programs put restrictions on transportation and storage. The reformulated gasolines required in some urban areas and in California cost more to produce than conventional gasoline served elsewhere, increasing the price paid at the pump.
Twenty-five States have passed legislation to restrict the use of the gasoline additive MTBE but only California, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island relied on the additive. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed into law in August 2005, also allows refiners to discontinue use of oxygenates (including MTBE) in reformulated gasoline. Because of the concerns of groundwater contamination, MTBE is expected to be phased out in the U. S. in the next few years. MTBE removal requires large changes to gasoline production and distribution. California faced temporary supply dislocations and price volatility during the summer of 2003 as MTBE was removed from gasoline in the State. Nevertheless, New York and Connecticut had a relatively smooth transition phasing out MTBE in 2004 as a result of better preparation from the gasoline suppliers and distributors.

This is not enough!

In an independent test done by Joe Taylor a member of BioPerformance field team, indicates that emissions can, in fact, practically eliminate hydo-carbons, carbon monoxide and nox gases. See actual document. Technology today is embarking on change, exactly what the Presidents is hoping will come forth. American’s are taking matters into their own hands and making a difference, and I believe a big difference.
BioPerformance Inc. (http://bioperformancefuel.us SeeTestimonials ) has created BioPerformance Fuel a fuel product that I believe needs huge attention. This product is significant in controlling (practically eliminating) the very poisons being put into the air. Dramatically increases mileage. For use in ANY petroleum based equipment, vehicle. America runs on oil and that to me is ok. I have to hand it to Americans that make a difference on our lives. Controlling the ridiculous purse of the major oil tycoon companies is an action we need to fight back on. Tapping into that purse is exactly what Americans want – money back into their pockets to raise their families. Saving our environment is another important aspect worth everybody’s attention and I intend on telling the world one person at a time. How about you!

By: Caleb King

Caleb King — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:43:59 +0000

Hey, it’s a start. You all make good points, but as Japhet noted, it’s almost unbelievable for Mr. Bush to even indicate a need to ween ourselves from oil. I certainly didn’t expect that to happen from a second term president from Texas! Rock on, RAN.

By: Jim Miller

Jim Miller — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 15:33:06 +0000

The preceding comments by (Jim) about alternative energy solutions being around for many years is absolutely correct. What we heard last night from President Bush is a walking, talking, breathing embodiment of ExxonMobil living vicariously (or vice versa) through our current political administrattion. If you paid close attention to his speech, he wants to break foreign oil imports by 75% by 2025. Just around the time that all the known crude oil is gone..and our planet is that much more toxic. I find it almost amusing (in a serious sense) that we (the USA) and Australia were the only two countries that refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. I think the game plan of more education, pressure from groups like RAN, Greenpeace, etc and a more commited print and electronic media (let’s face it the mainstreram media hasn’t done anything constructive yet) are the keys to an oil-free, less toxic future.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:55:54 +0000

Take all the money spent on Iraq and other foreign invasions and put it toward a massive energy program. Wind, solar, mass transit bicycles, these ideas have been around for 50 years, it’s just that the people in power won’t allow them to be developed because of fatal flaws in the corporate capitalist system. America needs to be redesigned from the ground up, not just our addiction to oil.

By: B.K. DeLong

B.K. DeLong — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 14:24:14 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t massive amounts of oil used to create plastics in our country? What’s the ratio of oil used for heating / powering travel and plastics?