U.S. Presidential Hopeful Wants End of U.S. Dependence On Foreign Oil

The first democrat to throw his hat in for the Presidential bid is Iowa's Governor Tom Vilsack. His main focus it to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and to use alternative energy sources. He has lead his state in changing farm fields into energy fields. As governor (2 terms) he has balanced the States budget while not raising taxes and still increased spending on education, health care and higher wages.



He sure has an understanding of what (I believe) Americans want. The constant threat of higher oil prices and countries having the ability to bring the U.S. to its knees by cutting off our oil supply has got to end. He is a firm believer in ethanol, bodies, and wind power. This is a subject that rates very high for people from both parties.

It also appears he is good at balancing budgets and spending money where it really needs to be spent. Only time will tell how for he will get in his bid for the Presidency.

Other candidates commitees are probably already digging for the "dirt" on him.

[edit on 1/12/06 by Keyhole]

This is the most important issue. Using other energy sources. Bill Gates and the other Billionaires who are just "giving their money away" to solve diseases should find other sources. This is truly the root of most of the suffering in the world.

As a republican this is the type of Canidate i could really get behind, I believe our energy problems are the largest issue's facing us today. A plan like his would not just solve energy problems but would help with economic problems and foreign policy problems. I need to learn more about this guy.

Well he definatley has some a good platform to run on, the problem is that presidential elections isn't based so much on the platform you run on, it's more of how many people you can fool into voting for you. So this guy might be a fantastic candidate (I won't make a decision on that until I see the rest of his stance on the issues), but if he's running against people like Hilary or Guiliani he could get hit pretty hard.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well he definatley has some a good platform to run on, the problem is that presidential elections isn't based so much on the platform you run on, it's more of how many people you can fool into voting for you. So this guy might be a fantastic candidate (I won't make a decision on that until I see the rest of his stance on the issues), but if he's running against people like Hilary or Guiliani he could get hit pretty hard.

While what you state is true if all he does is get a portion of the vote over 10 percent or more it will open up the eyes of other politicians to his platform. Which is always a good thing.

Just to restate every thing, I agree with most everything that has been said. First off I like what he is saying. The draw back is that you generally can not believe anything a politician says. However if the article listed is true, it sounds like he has done a lot for alternate fuels. The problem with that is the oil companies will be putting some big bucks in to discredit him, and to support his opposition. Which means right not that could be either hillery or guilinie. From just the article above he might have my vote.

On the day following the Nine Eleven Event, I urged a 75 cents a gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Each pump would display a notice, For the Duration. It would have raised people's morale because we'd be contributing to the War on Terror. In a real way. According to estimates in 2000, each cent on a gallon would produce $1 billion a year in Federal tax revenues. People laughed then, and I suppose they continue to laugh today. What the Hey? Let's borrow the money from China and let the grand kids pay it back. Hmm? Instead of going to college, they can pay our debt. WoW! Is that anything like "tough love?"

Because space is also at a premium especially in NYC and other crowded urban venues. I also proposed an “area” tax on motor vehicles. A Honda Civic - the kind of car I’d accept as sensible in today’s environment - is 69 inches wide and 171 inches long. That’s 81.9 square feet, say 80 square feet. A Cadillac Escalade is 78 inches wide and 206 inches long, about 111.6 square feet or say, 110 square feet. Suppose we add a “space tax” of $10 per square foot, per year, for all area over 80 square feet? To occupy more space than a Civic, the Escalade driver would pay an extra $300 a year.

A Civic weighs about 2200 pounds of steel, aluminum, glass and plastic. The Escalade weighs over 4,600 pounds. Suppose we imposed a excess weight tax of say, $10 per 100 pounds per year on weight over 2,200 pounds. That would add $240 more per year tax for using an Escalade’s too much space and too much of the Earth’s scarce and expensive to process - energy wise - natural resources.

If each vehicle was driven 15,000 miles, then the Civic would use about 500 gallons and the more luxurious Escalade about 800 gallons. Adding about $225 a year more than the Civic. For the “privilege” of owning a $45,000 Escalade, the driver would pay about $765 a year more than the $16,000 Civic owner. Which seems fair to me. If you are not prepared to do something exactly like this, then you are not really serious about energy independence. The "A" sticker in WW2 was allotted 3 gallons of gas a month. The Greatest Generation. They knew what sacrifice meant.

The biggest scam running right now is ADM - Archer Daniels Midland. The favorite “earmark” of Senator Bob Dole, once Majority Leader of the GOP dominated Senate. It’s called ethanol. As contrasted with methanol.
www.straightdope.com...
biodiesel.infopop.cc...

The real problem with ethanol or methanol is that it takes more energy to produce than the finished product contains. Gasoline has 35,000 btu per gallon, ethanol about 24,000. I have read that it takes nearly as much energy as ethanol contains to produce it, if you count the planting, harvesting and so on in the end product.

Cars have come a long way in EPA standards since the first use of ethanol for cleaner burring fuels in the 1970s. Gasohol or ethanol is no longer needed or even preferred in 21st century automobiles. ADM is the single largest recipient of Department of Agriculture money. ADM say “Thank you Senator Dole, you did right by us!”

Aside: the corn and soy beans used by ADM could feed 10s 0f 1000s of starving people around the planet. What is the higher usage of a limited resource? www.spe.org...



[edit on 12/2/2006 by donwhite]

Yes the whole world is starting to embrace the concept of renewable energy, and about time, it WIll be hyrogen eventually.

The Middle east will become a much less dangerous place once there Oil is a worthless relic of the past.

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Yes the whole world is starting to embrace the concept of renewable energy, and about time, it WIll be hyrogen eventually.

The Middle east will become a much less dangerous place once there Oil is a worthless relic of the past.

1) Hydrogen requires gobs of energy to produce and compress for vehicular use.

2) The Middle east will still be a mess because of the Paternalistic Warlord Culture they love so much.

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop


1) Hydrogen requires gobs of energy to produce and compress for vehicular use.

Check out the GM car that currently runs on Hydrogen
www.youtube.com...

Hythane is a Natural Gas, Hydrogen Mix that will in alot of instances bridge the Gap before complete Hydrogen - Im so certain of it taht I invest in the company thats the parent of this company, they have just got US goverment funding for a big test project, India has just dispatched an Engine to the US for conversion to it ,actually i could rave facts all day but .....
Check out the site www.hythane.com...

2) The Middle east will still be a mess because of the Paternalistic Warlord Culture they love so much.

Your probably right, but if we get to the Point of Zero dependance on ME oil we wont have to become involved, all we will need to do is bomb WMD sites as they come online

I feel sorry for this guy, if he gets elected he might end up like a few other presidents who tried to fix a few big problems we had...

Referring to Lincoln and Kennedy and 2 before them.. I cant remember their names however.

But his ideas are good, But if he isn't talking about more tv time for Britney Spears or something like that he has no chance in hell to get elected.

From what I read here, he seems a man who's done his homework and a working record to support it. I also feel dropping dependency of foreign oil (eg Canada), is not a hit the switch type change. A gradual withdrawal based on, as written above -new technologies. Such as hydrogen fuel and other, to be found, semi-pollutant or less local energy resources.

Dallas

posted by ThichHeaded

Referring to Lincoln and Kennedy and 2 before them.. I cant remember their names however.

But his ideas are good,

Eisenhower preceded JFK and Truman was ahead of Ike.
1945-1953 - HST
1953 - 1961 - Ike

Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were before Lincoln

posted by Dallas

I feel dropping dependency of foreign oil (e.g. Canada), is not a hit the switch type change. A gradual withdrawal based on, as written above -new technologies. Such as hydrogen fuel and other to be found, semi-pollutant or less local energy resources. Dallas [Edited by Don W]

We are currently torn between a”wish list” mentality and a hard nosed “today is it” reality. To this impossible water and oil mix is also added the “peak oil” theory that we are approaching the trpping point of declining production versus ever rising consumption. Which event will cause a spiral of crude oil price increases that will result in the inter-nationalization of crude oil deposits. Under UN control, every human would be allotted an equal number of barrels of oil per year. 31 billion bbls a year, divided by 6.5 billion people equals about 5 barrels a year per person. 42 gallons per barrel. Hmm?

We have over twenty-five years experience with wind generated electricity. Nice, clean, but it won't replace Hoover Dam or the Grand Coulee Dam. Since 1973 I have seen the solar heating of homes and hot water boom and then bust. Even the cleanest coal fired electric generating plants still put too much carbon dioxide into the air. The Germans made gasoline from coal in World War 2. The chemistry we know, the costs are still too high.

America is in the process now of licensing between 50 and 80 nuclear generating plants. Siting of plants will begin by 2009 and by 2015 the first new plants will come on line. The American taxpayers need to keep a watchful eye, that with the best Congress money can buy, they don’t get the “privilege” of paying for those plants - electric companies are now largely owned by foreign capital - in the guise of energy independence wrapped up in national security - then have to pay 15 cents a KWH for the electricity. If we have to pay for the plants in the first instance, then we should “own” the product and sell the electricity for about 10 cents a KWH. Profitably.

Tar sands in Alberta have been known for over 100 years and are still not economic to “mine” in 2006. See link below. The same skepticism about the rock shale in Colorado applies; Shell Oil went there in the 1960s and have abandoned their efforts. Which ought to tell us something. See link below. Presently hydrogen is cheapest to obtain from natural gas. No advantage there. Until we can get hydrogen from sea water, at affordable costs, we’re barking at the moon.

Biodiesel works today because there is a fair amount of raw material available at unrealistically low prices. We have over 200 million automobiles in America, and biodiesel is playing around the fringes only. Backyard mechanics and hobbyists. You don’t see BP or Shell getting into it, do you?

The world in 2006 is based on crude oil. We are using the only fuel our industrialized society can use. It has every advantage. Cheap. Widely available. Easily refined. Transportable. Storable. Versatile. Truly a miracle. Fossil fuels come in a variety of forms. The cheapest of which are natural gas and crude oil.

Tinkering is fun, but the only way we can ever have energy independence is to reduce our consumption. We must reduce our gasoline use by 66% and any way to do that is ok by me. We must reduce our household electricity consumption by 50% and any way we do that is ok by me. No ac unless ambient temp exceeds 80 deg. No heat unless ambient temp drops to 65 deg. Hey, that’s the way most people in England lived until the 1980s so it can be done. If we really want to be energy independent.

In the meantime, we are just sloganeering. Willing victims of demagoguery. Pigeons just waiting to be plucked by con men of every variety.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 12/3/2006 by donwhite]

Sorry donwhite, but you sound exactly like the people who too Galileo to court, and laughed at Columbus for refusing to accept that the world was flat. Nothing can ever be achieved if we don't believe that change is possible. We cannot stop or cut funding for these projects because our current and previous research has not yet yieled the results we need. Each of the discussed technologies has since they were invested in become cheaper and more efficient. That has occured with only marginal funding.

By making the research a priority with heavy funding, we can get closer and closer every year. No, I don't believe it will happen overnight. But within a decade or two, at least we will have leveraged out our fuel needs between a large variety of environmentally and highly efficeint renewable fuels.

posted by Dyepes

Sorry donwhite, but you sound exactly like the people who took Galileo to court, and laughed at Columbus for refusing to accept that the world was flat. [Edited by Don W]

Gosh, Mr D, you’re calling me what I called others, “proto-neanderthals!” Then I learned how Neanderthals cared for their injured compatriots and I felt I owed them an apology.

Nothing can ever be achieved if we don't believe that change is possible. We cannot stop or cut funding for these projects because our current and previous research has not yet yielded the results we need.

God knows I am a socialist, and when you say “funding” my ears perk up! There is nothing I like better than to see Federal largess out-flowing to the great university laboratories around the country. But all such Federally funded research has to be under supervision of a board that is qualified to select the right labs and not just to throw money at an ill defined problem about which we have not yet reached a consensus how to address.

Each of the discussed technologies has become cheaper and more efficient. That has occurred with only marginal funding. By making the research a priority with heavy funding, we can get closer and closer every year.

I believe it is the appropriate role for the Federal government to know enough about everything to be able to make sound judgements on any topic. To that extent you and I share the same goals. I’m slightly more familiar with the shale in Colorado. I would not spend any more tax money on that until someone showed me why the government should. I take the same approach to Alberta tars and to hydrogen fueled cars. After we adopt smaller cars and insulate our dwellings then we can investigate the future. But lets deal with the present first. At least as far as public money is concerned.

No, I don't believe it will happen overnight. But within a decade or two, at least we will have leveraged out our fuel needs between a large variety of environmentally and highly efficient renewable fuels. [Edited by Don W]

Like the VP Cheney “perpetual” modified to “decades” War on Terror, I am very much skeptical about making that long a commitment. Heck I did not want to marry for that long, so I sure don’t want to fund ADM or its counterparts on a blank check open end project. Let’s stop fighting dumb and learn to fight smart. OK, that’s my WoT theory, but it can apply as well to research at the fringes of the possible. Be wary. And let’s be sure who owns the patent rights.


[edit on 12/3/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
I feel sorry for this guy, if he gets elected he might end up like a few other presidents who tried to fix a few big problems we had...

This guy has less than a zero chance of being elected. Name the last President elect who had a double chin? Thought so.

He could go to the UFO/alien/disclosure card and it wouldn't get him votes.

Peace

I agree with doctor love, but having a double chin doesn't have anything to do with being a president.

Several women have come forward with allegations of inappropriate touching during their childhood. Apparently he was playing "doctor" at the age of six with some neighbor's kids. A special prosecutor has been chosen for the task.

Just kidding

But you know it is bound to happen, sooner or later. America can't get their minds out of their pants, ya know...:duh