Please tell me they don't have anything about spending money on "liquid coal" in there...there's no reason to invest in dirty energy as we try to wean from the Middle Eastern tit. It's not just about getting off oil, it's about keeping the world alive also.

Please do NOT support "liquid coal". It is a dirty and energy inefficient process from the beginning to the end. We don't need to destroy mountains for a few barrels of diesel fuel.

The Republicans are paid bribes by the oil companies to vote against these sort of bills and ammendments. Why would they risk stopping the gravy train or miss out on becoming lobbyists for them when they retire.

Look at where all the former Republican Senators have gone (starting with Fred Thompson)...gone to lobbying for oil and multinational companies that keep our country dependent on others for our energy and now all our manufacturing and soon all our technological needs.

We need to declare our independence from the lot of them.

The senate majority leader is Republican Mitch McConnell from Kentucky. Kentucky is a coal producing state. What do you think the chances are that he'll make sure "clean coal" is one of the alternative fuel sources.

I admit that I HOPE there is a possibility of making coal clean; but I have my doubts.

The eastern coalfields don't have much coal that can be mined without destroying the total environment. Witness the "mountain removal project" going on in eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. This is criminal greed on a large scale.
The only coal field that can be utilized for coal gasification without wreaking total havoc on the environment is the Powder River field in Wyoming and eastern Montana. The coal bed there is huge, several times bigger than eastern coal fields, close to the surface and in fairly level terrain compared to the eastern coal fields.
However, strict regulation with continuous oversight should be in place before coal gasification starts anywhere.
The ranchers of eastern Wyoming are already up in arms about saline gas field water which is destroying their ranches because there is little or no EPA oversight thanks to the Bushiato. Eastern Montana ranchers are currently fighting an effort to start releasing untreated gas field water into streams in Montana. Coal gassification has the potential for damage, that must be recognized and controlled up front.
I can see coal gasification as a stop-gap measure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we need to keep looking for better alternatives, and making the current wind, and solar technology cheaper and more efficient.
We also need to look closely at NON-FOOD sources of ethanol. The rising costs of corn which is being diverted to the manufacture of ethanol has already caused a crisis in corn products in Mexico, and is making it difficult for the working poor of this country to afford meat for their families.
I notice that bio-diesel, which is not touted by big business, is getting the cold shoulder from the media, even though it can be made from waste products from resturants, and packing plants.
There is no one solution for energy independence, it needs to be a multi faceted solution that encompasses many sources of energy.
Thinking inside the energy box, and going along with "conventional wisdom" as touted by the oil companies, got us into this mess.
We need to start climbing out of the box and looking at the rest of the solutions.

Coal is inherently high in carbon. Coal gasification leaves CO2, but it doesn't need to be released into the atmosphere.
There is a project in Canada which is using the CO2 from coal gasification to pump into older oil fields instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.
The CO2, under pressure, drives the remnants of the oil out of the rock layers, reviving the oil field, and then stays trapped in the rock and out of the environment.
It could be a viable interim solution while we are getting other sources of energy, and other energy saving solutions, on line.
Like I said, we have to climb out of the oil companies' box, that they have us in, and look around.
There are a lot of things that big business isn't telling us and we need to dig around, find out possible solutions and work to see which ones and in what combinations are the best.
But, the thing to remember is that there is no one solution fits all.

I receive informatiion from the National Republican Party that a friend sends to me to needle me. They sent out widespread information to party loyalists to call their congressmen to kill the immigration bill. Now the auto industry lobbyists are pressuring them to do the same thing to the emerging energy bill. Saying that congress wants to require minimum gas mileage on newly produced vehicles. They claim that this will make it unsafe for drivers (size matters). It will also raise the price of cars due to the research and development involved. We need to counter the arguments with 1) As long as those hummers and other gas guzzlers are on the road WE ALL pay for higher gas prices; 2) The same thing was said about rising prices when they pressured to put seat belts and air bags in cars.

One key amendment to the energy bill is coming up soon. Authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), it would require electric utilities to obtain at least 15% of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and biomass by the year 2020. More info here.

Inside word on the Bingaman Renewable Portfolio Standard is that the vote will be very tight. If you support this concept, the time to weigh in is right now. You can reach any Senator's office through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
risingwind.blogspot.com

The proposals are good in terms of what we should be willing to settle for at this point, but we should start out with more extreme goals and negotiate. Don't you know how politics works?
Of course with all the money that W(easel) & Dick Cheney's oil friends are going to throw at Congress to defeat this proposal, it probably doesn't have a chance.

Coming from a large family, in more ways than one, I can say from experience, that compact vehicles are not for everyone.
I can't drive certain compacts, because I can't get my foot on the brake, the steering column gets in the way, and I'm not that tall, only 5'11".
My daughter found a nice fuel-efficient car that she wanted buy. Her son couldn't even get into the driver's seat, and he's only 6'3!
My nephew took his full sized pickup into a dealership for service, and couldn't get into the compact they offered him for a loaner car. OK, he's 6'8", I'll admit he's a bit big.
My point is that making fuel-efficient cars extremely compact is a dumb idea. Vwehicles need to be more ergonomic.
Why isn't there more of a push to make fuel-efficient vehicles for EVERYONE, not just the short? Americans aren't compact people.

You may well ask, Butte. The American auto industry, which is posting record losses (in billions) is blind, deaf, and dumb when it comes to redesign.
There is NO reason for the internal combustion engine (120 year old technology) to still be in use, except that the oil companies and auto makers want it that way. TODAY, we have engines that can run on water, air, biodiesel, and electricity etc.
A short term help would be for Ford and GM to start making diesel cars (even OLDER technology). The modern diesel engine is NOT the clacky, slow thing it once was. Meanwhile, Honda IS doing it. BMW has a diesel that totally kicks butt, and a hybrid. Toyota has their new hybrids. But here sits America, still thinking this is 1950.

Bama: Agreed, Detroit automakers have had their heads up their collective posteriors for years.
The problem with the slow clacky cranky engine that GM brought out in the '80s wasn't that diesel technology was so far behind the times. The problem was that it was appearantly designed on a gas engine block that was not properly thought out or tested before it was pushed onto the general public, who had little the experience with diesel engines.
Diesels, because of their inherent requirements for clearances due to metal expansion and their heavier construction will always be slightly more noisy than gassers, and will have a bit slower pickup for similar engine designs.
However foreign companies like Mercedes and VW have produced quite peppy cars for years, and have had success selling them in this country.
The plus sides for diesels are the fact they can use bio-diesel with no modification needed, and the fact that because the engines have a more robust design because of the higher pressures needed in the combustion chamber, they are longer lasting and more durable than an equivalent gasoline engine.
In fact, diesels can be designed to burn just about anything. The multifuel engines used in 2 1/2 Ton trucks in the 70s & early 80s could burn anything from diesel, to gasoline (with the addition of about a quart of oil per tankfull) to Korean moonshine. They had a special combustion chamber design. Most were replaced by the "clean burn" engines in the 80s.
My main problem with a diesel is that they cost more than an equivalent gas engine, or I would have had one long ago. I've worked around diesels in a number of applications for most of my military career, and I like them.

The following website gives prices and gas mileage on hybrid vehicles. The gas mileage is okay and the emissions are supposed to be extremely low. These vehicles might be good alternatives if you are too tall or too big for compacts.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_news.shtml

Mercury Mariner Hybrid $25,765
34/30 mpg

Ford Escape Hybrid $25,075
34/30 mpg

I think we need to do a lot more with conservation and using alternative sources of energy. Not only for the environment but to avoid contributing to or creating unstable goverments and endless/pointless blood shed for US troops.

Many houses still aren't adequately insulated especially among the poor. The poor are also hit with high energy bills during the extreme hot or cold periods - either that or they become sick or die from exposure to temperature extremes. Perhaps the energy bill could set up real financial encouragement for land lords and poor home owners to better insulate their homes. My parents used a government program in the 70's to insulate a house they purchased but I don't think many of these programs exist anymore. A lot of our energy usuage is from home heating and cooling and a good program for the poor would help.

I don't agree with the republican neo-conservative contention that the market alone will force conservation. I think we need strong and committed leadership in building a energy policy that the public will support. I don't think that the republican party can provide such leadership. I hope the democratic party will chose a presidential candidate to provide leadership on energy conservation, use of alternative energy sources, and reduction of our dependence of foreign sources of oil (especially in unstable and hostile regions).

Both sides have also done a lot of talking in the media about gas price gouging. Everything spring the prices keep going higher and higher and this time the gas prices are at an all time record high. All I hear from both sides is a lot of talk about investigations on price gouging and nothing ever happens. When is someone actually going to get off their rear end and do something besides talk? Not one oil company or gas station has been punished. When will congress stand up and do something besides talk?

I hope that something will be done to get us away from oil, we depend too much on oil because we need it for energy but what we really need is a different form of it, good, clean energy. I just hope that something will happen, I've heard so much talk about this just like I did about ending the Iraq war and so far nothing has changed!

How is it that we can concentrate so relentlessly on alternative fuels (especially after we've looked away while the oil companies and auto industry killed the electric car, and refuse to address the legalization of industrial hemp though it is easily the most effective source of renewable biofuel) while completely neglecting the real problem with energy waste: buildings. Cars may be a tangible source of a visible pollutant (evidenced by smog), but that's not where most of our energy is going. We don't need coal plants to run our cars. Even clean coal will never have anything to do with powering a vehicle (unless we do revive the electric car, but then only marginally). We care about coal because we need to power our terribly inefficient and poorly designed works of architecture.

I say we need greater incentives for compliance with LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards. We can't simply replace our fuel supply without greatly diminishing the DEMAND for fuel. We have the technology today to create buildings that are carbon-neutral and zero-energy.

Furthermore, by designing neighborhoods in urban centers that promote walking and alternative transportation while bringing residential units closer to occupational zones, then we can greatly cut down on the use of these automotive scapegoats.

I support every step we can make toward energy independence, but we need to look at a much larger picture than just driving a hybrid on your commute from the suburbs.

Just wondering if anyone has seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car if u have not it is very interesting and shows that we already have the technology to solve alot of problems these cars were up and running in California they were fast and could go 300 miles on one charge can anyone tell me why we are not using technology we already have

Just wondering if anyone has seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car if u have not it is very interesting and shows that we already have the technology to solve alot of problems these cars were up and running in California they were fast and could go 300 miles on one charge can anyone tell me why we are not using technology we already have

The Truth About CO2

CO2 Now Historically Low

A thin veneer of sedimentary rocks blankets the Earth's surface and, along with ice cores from glaciers, can provide a reasonable geologic history of the Earth's past atmosphere.

Scientific study of these rocks suggests the Earth's atmosphere in ancient times had considerably more CO2 than today.

Many experiments have demonstrated that the rate of plant growth is largely governed by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the growth rate of plants increases dramatically. Similarly, the plant growth rate decreases as atmospheric CO2 decreases.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is the basic food for plants, and since plants provide the food for animal life (including humans), CO2 is the base of the food chain for all advanced life forms on Earth.

The present level of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely low by historical standards. If atmospheric CO2 is significantly reduced, it is more likely that slower plant growth could affect world food supplies while having little effect on global warming.

The life of all plants and animals on Earth is dependent on CO2 for food and oxygen. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is the staff of life for our planet.

cjosie: WHO said that???
Please cite some references.

It's funny that, if the CO2 is at an all time low, that we have been able to feed the world's populations until recently, when the CO2 levels are up, thanks to global warming and the disturbance of weather patterns, which are tied to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The thing that concerns me is the big agribusinesses now pushing corn for ethanol as a fuel, when they are taking food away from the world's populations, creating a rise in food prices that is harming much of the world's populations, plus the fact that they are using non-renewable resources to create the ethanol which pretty much amounts to NO benefit. There is no attempt to make a balance by using renewable sources in the manufacture.
It is imperative that we look at ALL the costs of ANY alternative before going overboard especially when it's being touted as THE ANSWER to our problems.
There's always a snake in paradise, and we have to balance the benefits with the liabilities, and to see how we can improve the benefits and reduce the liabilities by using an integrated system of renewable energy, and environmental protections.
Considering that the main pushers of ethanol are ADM, Con-Agra, Monsanto, and Cargill, ought to say something right off the top.
There is NO one perfect solution.
BTW, the oil companies are talking about not increasing their refining capacity, because of ethanol production, which means to improvement in gas prices in the future.
Things that make you say "Hmmmm?????"

We can already see the end results of the Democrats engergy policy! Renewable fuels are taking much needed food and converting it to fuel! The corn being converted to fuel was once used for animal feed!

The price of corn will continue rise! More farmers will convert from beans, peas, carrots etc and plant corn which will cause other food products to raise!

Dems don't even mention nuclear power! I served for 26 years on board navy nuclear powered submarines! Nuclear power is clean and very safe if regulated (the navy has never had a incident with its nuclear power) and can greatly reduce our dependence on oil! But, again the Left has reached out with scare tatics in the past condeming nuclear power; so much so that they as a party can not support this form of power without being labeled as a flip-flop!

AND.. just like a true Democarat you are already pointing a finger towards the GOP!

Reminder! Dems are the true racists! You promoted and supported slavery! You brought into power a terrorist group calld the KKK! Dems have never brought forward a equal rights bill; they just rode the coattails of the GOP! See for yourself... look at the Dems home-page and thier history! Funny that there is no mention of the period where the DEMS fought to keep slavery in place and killed and terrorized tens of thousands of Blacks with their terror group the KKK!

Rick

Ethanol's not really a Democrat idea.
It's an idea pushed by the Republicans and the Republi-lites at the behest of the oversized agribusinesses who have also brought you; the destruction of the Mexican farm economy which is bringing more economic refugees into the US; the continuing destruction of US and Canadian family farms and ranches; the dependence on petroleum based fertilizers; frankenfoods; and pesticide dependent corn and soybeans which have contaminated heritage seed crops and brought lawsuits against farmers who are growing their own seeds, and don't even want frankengenes in their corn and soy beans.
One more reason to defeat the Republi-lites in the primaries and bring in more populist Democrats.

Talking about energy savings, if we are so bent on saving energy, why isn't the winterization programs for the low income people who own their own homes expanded.
Many working families and farm families can't afford the extensive insulation, heating plant, and window replacement needed to improve their homes' energy efficiency, and reduce their heat bills, hopefully to something affordable.
Out here, we use a lot of natural gas, while back east they use a lot of heating oil. Just helping working families with their winterization will reduce the amount of petroleum products required.
Along those lines, affordable photovoltaic(pv) solar kits for grid tied electrical set ups, and also 5kw windmills either separately or in conjuction with the pv could greatly reduce energy costs for lower income families, and also reduce our dependence on coal and gas fired power plants.
These wouldn't be fancy high-cost installations, but with smaller wind and solar producers spread over a wider area, the energy production through wind and solar energy can be greatly evened out.
It would help working and farm families.
The big energy companies wouldn't like it, they'd probably fight it, but they've had consumers by the short hairs for decades, it's about time we got something back.

How about getting PAC people out of the loop off the HILL. Big AUTO,OIL and others are not going to help with ANY decisions on Energy ... Unless you grant them oil drilling rights on BLM land or give them greater insentive to build ever larger cars...Get them outta there....
I would also like to know why your not making public ALL pork projects.. Was this not one of your sale items in 2006 . Don't look at the other side and do what they have done. It's not working for them and will not work for you . If you say transparent government do it. We say were going to pay our taxes better hope we are better for our word than you... Remember....It's NOT your money . We pay our taxes in Trust that YOU will spend it in good standing....It's NOT your GOVERNMENT it's ours....We The People not you on the Hill