I could care less about all this, and don't try to paint me as a tree-hugger. I just want to stop lining the pockets of the oil sheikhs, and the best way for us to do this is to live closer to where we work. If people weren't making unnecessary extended daily commutes to work, hybrids and electric cars would be a moot issue.

 

Let us drill for our own oil as we make advances in technology, so hybrids and electric cars are as powerful as a V-8 (some of us actually need that power) and can go a thousand miles without recharging.

 

I am not against new technology, if it is as good as what we have now. What I am against is someone taking my freedom in the name of some high-sounding cause.

I tend to agree with the previous poster about living and working where we choose. How about using ALL of our own resources while developing more instead of lining the pockets of the oil sheikhs?

 

I'm fine with that, too. But it's not like we're talking about an unlimited resource here. Using much less is still in the best interest of our country.

I'm fine with that, too. But it's not like we're talking about an unlimited resource here. Using much less is still in the best interest of our country.

 

I agree that we need to conserve on energy. Even the power companies are trying to get people to conserve. Every electric company I have seen from the investor owned utilities (eg. KU), the municipal owned utilities, and the cooperatives, are all trying to incentivize customers to use less of their product. What other industry is trying to convince their customers to use less of their product? Not many, if any. The reason? Simple, .. if the current administration and congress have their way, the price of coal fired electricity (which still provides 50% of the national power and 85% in Kentucky) is going to get so high that many of their customers won't be able to afford it, will not pay their bills, and put these electric companies in a poor financial situation. These companies, especially the cooperatives do not have the funds to move towards renewable energy at a rate the government wants them to. The money just isn't there. Bad debts owed to the power companies are at an all time high and it will just get worse if you do the math: Weakened economy + Higher electric prices = increased bad debt.

 

Wind turbines in Kentucky won't work due to their unpredictability, not enough hydroelectric opportunities, solar is still not very effective right now (although there are incentives to buying a solar water heater, and water heaters are the 2nd largest user of residential power after the heating/cooling system in a home). Many are tapping some of the landfill gases for power, but that is producing a miniscule portion of our usage.

 

What we need is a real energy plan. A grid (like Obama and McCain spoke of during the campaign) where the power from wind can be harnessed in the wind corridor from Texas to Canada and sent on to the other areas of the country. Also the coastlines are terrific spots for wind turbines and closer to the east coast than the wind corridor, but most folks on the coast don't want to look at these 'eyesores' (the old 'sounds great, but not in my backyard' argument). Reconsider nuclear. It seems that France and several other countries are having great luck with this with NO ACCIDENTS. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are so far behind us, but still weigh on many people's minds. If you can do this, then hybrid vehicles for many people become much more feasible due to the decreased cost of charging their vehicles.

 

Also, what about conversion to natural gas vehicles? They burn much cleaner, cheaper and we have an abundance of it. Even ardent enviromentalists like Ed Begley Jr are behind this until we have other alternatives. But to do this would require there to be stations where to fill up, and right now, those are few and far between. I even have an Impala which runs on flex fuel (gas or corn based gas), but cannot find anywhere to get it, so I am still running on gas.

 

Our energy problems in this country are just going to get worse if the situation isn't addressed in the very near future. Obama's goal of bankrupting coal is not the answer. The people who will pay for this are all of us, ... including those who can barely afford their electric bills right now.

I agree that we need to conserve on energy. Even the power companies are trying to get people to conserve. Every electric company I have seen from the investor owned utilities (eg. KU), the municipal owned utilities, and the cooperatives, are all trying to incentivize customers to use less of their product. What other industry is trying to convince their customers to use less of their product? Not many, if any. The reason? Simple, .. if the current administration and congress have their way, the price of coal fired electricity (which still provides 50% of the national power and 85% in Kentucky) is going to get so high that many of their customers won't be able to afford it, will not pay their bills, and put these electric companies in a poor financial situation. These companies, especially the cooperatives do not have the funds to move towards renewable energy at a rate the government wants them to. The money just isn't there. Bad debts owed to the power companies are at an all time high and it will just get worse if you do the math: Weakened economy + Higher electric prices = increased bad debt.

 

Wind turbines in Kentucky won't work due to their unpredictability, not enough hydroelectric opportunities, solar is still not very effective right now (although there are incentives to buying a solar water heater, and water heaters are the 2nd largest user of residential power after the heating/cooling system in a home). Many are tapping some of the landfill gases for power, but that is producing a miniscule portion of our usage.

 

What we need is a real energy plan. A grid (like Obama and McCain spoke of during the campaign) where the power from wind can be harnessed in the wind corridor from Texas to Canada and sent on to the other areas of the country. Also the coastlines are terrific spots for wind turbines and closer to the east coast than the wind corridor, but most folks on the coast don't want to look at these 'eyesores' (the old 'sounds great, but not in my backyard' argument). Reconsider nuclear. It seems that France and several other countries are having great luck with this with NO ACCIDENTS. Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island are so far behind us, but still weigh on many people's minds. If you can do this, then hybrid vehicles for many people become much more feasible due to the decreased cost of charging their vehicles.

 

Also, what about conversion to natural gas vehicles? They burn much cleaner, cheaper and we have an abundance of it. Even ardent enviromentalists like Ed Begley Jr are behind this until we have other alternatives. But to do this would require there to be stations where to fill up, and right now, those are few and far between. I even have an Impala which runs on flex fuel (gas or corn based gas), but cannot find anywhere to get it, so I am still running on gas.

 

Our energy problems in this country are just going to get worse if the situation isn't addressed in the very near future. Obama's goal of bankrupting coal is not the answer. The people who will pay for this are all of us, ... including those who can barely afford their electric bills right now.

 

You don't have to look so far. I believe there are several states that have used nukes successfully without incident. I'm told that South Carolina gets a large percentage of its electricity (60% comes to mind, but I don't know if that is accurate) from nuke plants.

Obama is not a friend to the coal business, although I don't think he can be blamed for the current economic downturn of the coal industry. Some coal companies waste so much money on some of their so called "key employees" who are virtually leaches of the company, that they really struggle when the price of coal drops.