Which Presidential Candidate is better to tackle GAS PRICES/ENERGY POLICY?

[SuperT]

Many people that are for national drilling don't understand that even if we get anything of any substance it'll be about 9-10 years from now and that's being generous, and by then gas will be probably around $7 to $8 dollars, that the little drivel we'll get won't have any sort impact.

Then once again we'll have wasted 10+ years of money that we could have totally poured into electric, wind, hydrogen, and possibly safe nuclear power.

It's like this country never learns. Like we're running in a little hamster will.

 

[The Senator]

Many people that are for national drilling don't understand that even if we get anything of any substance it'll be about 9-10 years from now and that's being generous, and by then gas will be probably around $7 to $8 dollars, that the little drivel we'll get won't have any sort impact.

Then once again we'll have wasted 10+ years of money that we could have totally poured into electric, wind, hydrogen, and possibly safe nuclear power.

It's like this country never learns. Like we're running in a little hamster will.

Wind power will never be able to develop into as large a power source as coal or natural gas... that's why I think nuclear power is the way to go, simply because it currently serves as the third largest supplier of our electrical energy and the technology is there to expand it into our largest...

 

[SuperT]

Well of course it won't be as large as coal or natural gas, but at least it would be another alternative out there.

We need as many clean, healthy, and affordable options as we can get.

 

[chaseter]

McCain's gas tax holiday crap is totally stupid. It's only going to save you like 30$ at the most. I want this country to start investing in other alternative sources of energy HARDCORE!

As for the drilling off shore - UGH. We've already destroyed other countries, lets come ever and destroy our national parks, coastlines, and environments! That'll just cause more environmental issues.

Another thing to help the gas, why aren't they investing in better public transportation for states?!?! If we had better freak'in bus systems, subways and things like, it wouldn't be that BIG of an issue.

WTF McCain wants nuclear power which is the most efficient source of energy on this planet right now. McCain also supports alternative energy source funding like the fusion reactors that are being built. Obama support ethanol, one of the most inneficient sources of energy at around a 66% net loss here in the USA. Ethanol is good in South American countries where sugar cane can flourish and their net loss is around 20%...but we can't grow sugar cane here. The Democrats also want to nationalize oil companies and their refineries which is one of the dumbest ideas out there.

Another thing Obama wants is to force the oil companies to invest in new technologies but why the f*** would a company that makes a product want to use their own money to try and make a different product when the one they are selling now is making them a lot of money...it is stupid.

 

[chaseter]

Well of course it won't be as large as coal or natural gas, but at least it would be another alternative out there.

We need as many clean, healthy, and affordable options as we can get.

We have wind turbines every where here but you can't have them in places where the wind doesn't blow that often. Then we have nuclear reactors that can push out so much power with so little input it is ridiculous. So what is more viable...having one reactor in the middle of no where or putting up thousands of windmills that some say will ruin the landscape if they are dotted everywhere.

 

[chaseter]

People that are voting for Obama over energy issues...I just cannot fathom why. If you want to drive around in a hydrogen car, by all means go ahead. You can sit on a tank of highly explosive compacted gas all you want. Also, how do you people think we get pure hydrogen to run those engines? All they see is that 'All the bi-products are is water and oxygen' when they don't realize how dangerous hydrogen is and the energy put in to even get hydrogen in the first place. Ethanol is another stupid energy source here in the US/North America.

 

[rdh007]

People that are voting for Obama over energy issues...I just cannot fathom why. If you want to drive around in a hydrogen car, by all means go ahead. You can sit on a tank of highly explosive compacted gas all you want. Also, how do you people think we get pure hydrogen to run those engines? All they see is that 'All the bi-products are is water and oxygen' when they don't realize how dangerous hydrogen is and the energy put in to even get hydrogen in the first place. Ethanol is another stupid energy source here in the US/North America.

I don't doubt the lack of safety. But I've got to believe people said that same thing about gasoline back in the proverbial day.

 

[chaseter]

I don't doubt the lack of safety. But I've got to believe people said that same thing about gasoline back in the proverbial day.

A tank full of hydrogen is waaaaay more dangerous than a tank full of gasoline. You have a wreck and the gas just leaks onto the ground...you have a wreck and the hydrogen leaks out into the air...KABOOM (if there is an open flame/spark in both cases) Hydrogen is very dangerous.

 

[The Senator]

A tank full of hydrogen is waaaaay more dangerous than a tank full of gasoline. You have a wreck and the gas just leaks onto the ground...you have a wreck and the hydrogen leaks out into the air...KABOOM (if there is an open flame/spark in both cases) Hydrogen is very dangerous.

You're absolutely kidding me, right?

You do realize that hydrogen vehicles are not the automobile equivalent of the Hindenburg, correct? Hydrogen powered cars operate through fuel cells, where the hydrogen is basically fed into a battery and converted to energy. A study conducted by the Department of Energy confirmed that fuel cells are actually safer than gas tanks.

For more dispelled hydrogen myths, consult this page:

http://www.bullnet.co.uk/shops/test/hydrogen.htm#hydrogen

 

[The Senator]

Another thing Obama wants is to force the oil companies to invest in new technologies but why the f*** would a company that makes a product want to use their own money to try and make a different product when the one they are selling now is making them a lot of money...it is stupid.

If you offer oil companies certain incentives, they will explore alternative energies. It is already happening in the United States, as BP (and others) have begun opening hydrogen and natural gas fueling stations in several states, in exchange for tax breaks and all those other things oil companies like...

 

[StorminNorman]

Isn't the great challenge of the next presidency and beyond to find something other than dead dinosaurs for us to be dependent on? It seems to me that the next president needs to treat this like the nukes race or the space race with the dirty commies. If we can figure out how to power cars on something that won't run out and is relatively ($5/gallon equivalent), then we'll have accomplished something. Heck, we might even stave off the inevitable end of the American Empire a little longer.

But focusing soley on future forms of energy and NOT addressing the issue of oil is deadly far sighted. It will be years before we can truly start reducing our depedence on oil.

 

[StorminNorman]

Many people that are for national drilling don't understand that even if we get anything of any substance it'll be about 9-10 years from now and that's being generous, and by then gas will be probably around $7 to $8 dollars, that the little drivel we'll get won't have any sort impact.

Then once again we'll have wasted 10+ years of money that we could have totally poured into electric, wind, hydrogen, and possibly safe nuclear power.

It's like this country never learns. Like we're running in a little hamster will.

If you think the only positive benefit of drilling for oil domestically is the oil we get from the ground - then you simply do not grasp the issue.

 

[The Senator]

If you want to drive around in a hydrogen car, by all means go ahead. You can sit on a tank of highly explosive compacted gas all you want. Also, how do you people think we get pure hydrogen to run those engines? All they see is that 'All the bi-products are is water and oxygen' when they don't realize how dangerous hydrogen is and the energy put in to even get hydrogen in the first place.

:slaps head:

You know, if you're going to make outlandish statements, you should probably research the topic you're criticizing before making them. Just so you don't look foolish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

 

[StorminNorman]

A tank full of hydrogen is waaaaay more dangerous than a tank full of gasoline. You have a wreck and the gas just leaks onto the ground...you have a wreck and the hydrogen leaks out into the air...KABOOM (if there is an open flame/spark in both cases) Hydrogen is very dangerous.

Hydrogen is the future, the danger it poses when it is commercially viable is no greater than fuel.

 

[StorminNorman]

People that are voting for Obama over energy issues...I just cannot fathom why. If you want to drive around in a hydrogen car, by all means go ahead. You can sit on a tank of highly explosive compacted gas all you want. Also, how do you people think we get pure hydrogen to run those engines? All they see is that 'All the bi-products are is water and oxygen' when they don't realize how dangerous hydrogen is and the energy put in to even get hydrogen in the first place. Ethanol is another stupid energy source here in the US/North America.

Voting for McCain is not voting against Hydrogen cars. Voting against Hydrogen cars is a bit like voting against the internet back in the day, or voting in favor of radio over TV - the change to Hydorgen fuel cells IS coming, no matter who the President is. The difference is addressing the problem now - Obama has no solution that would fix today's problems and does, in fact, only offer solutions that further escalate the problem.

 

[rdh007]

But focusing soley on future forms of energy and NOT addressing the issue of oil is deadly far sighted. It will be years before we can truly start reducing our depedence on oil.

I don't doubt that. I guess I have a problem believing that drilling for oil knowing it ain't there will help things and that there isn't an alternative to the ridiculousness of that. Having said that, I'm cool with drilling offshore for show if it means I can afford gas until we figure something else out, but I'm worried that a)we're in no real hurry to figure something else out and b) that no one in leadership anywhere seems remotely interested in tackling this now or in the foreseeable future and that drilling off shore won't change that.

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't doubt that. I guess I have a problem believing that drilling for oil knowing it ain't there will help things and that there isn't an alternative to the ridiculousness of that.

But we DO no where oil is. Not only do we know where the oil is - we know we can get TO the oil. Not only do we know where pockets of drillable oil are, there are other ways of producing oil by utilizing resources like oil shale and coal (which can be turned into oil).

If we start seriously taking these steps, the market will be greatly impacted (for the better). Again, the actual oil we get out of the ground is not nearly as valuable as the act itself. If OPEC and speculators and the like believe that America is serious in its search to become energy efficient, prices will go down. The last thing OPEC wants is to lose the influence it has over America.

 

[The Senator]

I think that wasting billions upon billions of dollars to create technology which could turn coal to oil is absolutely pointless, considering we already know that cars can run on natural gas and hydrogen-- two fuels which are are not only clean, but are readily available and could be implemented nationwide within a short period of time. All it takes is the production of vehicles which run on such technology, and the fueling stations in all fifty states. The best part is, we've already started producing vehicles which run on such technology, and the fueling stations are already popping up in some of the more populated states.

 

[StorminNorman]

I think that wasting billions upon billions of dollars to create technology which could turn coal to oil is absolutely pointless, considering we already know that cars can run on natural gas and hydrogen-- two fuels which are are not only clean, but are readily available and could be implemented nationwide within a short period of time. All it takes is the production of vehicles which run on such technology, and the fueling stations in all fifty states. The best part is, we've already started producing vehicles which run on such technology, and the fueling stations are already popping up in some of the more populated states.

I agree, but I do not see why it can not be both ways. I do not want the government to invest in coal to oil factories, but I think they should allow and supply tax incentives for oil companies to do so. If oil companies believe its marketably viable - then it indicates there will be a demand for such fuels and it will not at all be a waste. If oil companies look at the matter and decide that the demand will NOT be there, then its obvious that it would simply be a waste. I trust the oil companies, however, in the decision over the government.

I fully support Hydrogen fuel cells and want nothing more to see the infastructure be laid down to support it across the country. Again, however, it will take time. While the cars could hit the wide market in as little as two years, it will take 10, 12, 15 years before the make up 90+% of the automobile market. There will still be a demand for oil, no matter how small compared to now, in the near future.

 

[DACrowe]

I think we need to spend money on alternative sources other than gas-via-coal and ethanol. I much prefer pursuing safe nuclear power for the time being and researching heavily solar and wind power, while removing windfalls and breaks for oil corporations. I also support giving tax incentives to car manufacturers who produce hybrids and fuel-efficent cars and lower tariffs on similar imports.

Of course, these ideas would never pass as legislation. Just saying.

I mean I like some of what McCain says, but the crap about the tax holiday and now offshore drilling tells me it is mostly political posturing and I siply don't trust him in that regard.

 

[The Senator]

I agree, but I do not see why it can not be both ways. I do not want the government to invest in coal to oil factories, but I think they should allow and supply tax incentives for oil companies to do so. If oil companies believe its marketably viable - then it indicates there will be a demand for such fuels and it will not at all be a waste. If oil companies look at the matter and decide that the demand will NOT be there, then its obvious that it would simply be a waste. I trust the oil companies, however, in the decision over the government.

I fully support Hydrogen fuel cells and want nothing more to see the infastructure be laid down to support it across the country. Again, however, it will take time. While the cars could hit the wide market in as little as two years, it will take 10, 12, 15 years before the make up 90+% of the automobile market. There will still be a demand for oil, no matter how small compared to now, in the near future.

Coal to oil is simply not the way to go, regardless of what the oil companies may think. The fact is, the United States does not have the technology on hand to convert coal into a liquid, and such technology would take years to produce and cost billions to implement. Meanwhile, two fuels which we can produce on a mass level will sit around for another five to ten years.

Most importantly, liquefied coal is not the same consistency as oil. Because of this, we would need to upgrade our vehicles to support the fuel. Again, we have yet to implement such technology in the United States, which is why I think we should scrap the idea altogether to ensure that hydrogen and natural gas are utilized instead. The cost will be less, the fuels are more efficient, and they are clean.

 

[The Senator]

I think we need to spend money on alternative sources other than gas-via-coal and ethanol. I much prefer pursuing safe nuclear power for the time being and researching heavily solar and wind power, while removing windfalls and breaks for oil corporations. I also support giving tax incentives to car manufacturers who produce hybrids and fuel-efficent cars and lower tariffs on similar imports.

Of course, these ideas would never pass as legislation. Just saying.

I mean I like some of what McCain says, but the crap about the tax holiday and now offshore drilling tells me it is mostly political posturing and I siply don't trust him in that regard.

The only problem with your post is, nuclear reactors are not usually used to power cars.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh, I know. I meant for regional powers such as the Progressive Energy plant we have here in middle of NC. That is why I would push for tax incentives now and tariff breaks for hybrid and fuel efficient cars and money being spent for subsidies in solar and alternative power research to eventually replace oil and hopefully even nuclear power one day.

 

[souloffire]

Many people that are for national drilling don't understand that even if we get anything of any substance it'll be about 9-10 years from now and that's being generous,

That's what people said 10 years ago. If we did something then we might not be having this debate now.

 

[DACrowe]

No we'd be like "damn that didn't work and we ruined what few natural habitats we have left. What's plan B?"