Political elder statesmen of both parties push candidates to support comprehensive and bi-partisan energy solutions:

Link (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080716/wise_men_energy.html?.v=1)

The letter includes 13 broad recommendations. They include aggressively promoting energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption, increased commitments to both nuclear energy and renewable energy sources, making coal more environmentally acceptable and moving transportation away from oil as a fuel.


Looks good to me, why not do the Obama 10 year $150 billion plan AND lift the oil drilling ban and let the states decide. Makes the dem congress look good and lets the flack fall on the states.

Also does anyone know why the federal wind and solar incentives were not renewed…wtf

Here is the content of the letter:

Link (http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=18704&url=)

I agree with everything except for:


Transform Our Transportation Sector

... Efforts to develop and promote alternative transportation options, including second generation biofuels, plug-in hybrids, and all-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles, should be based on life cycle cost analysis and incorporate consideration of each technology’s required infrastructure into policy planning. ...

This sounds too much like our government trying to pick a winner first, then fund only that choice (think of original ethanol debacle that has corn and all other food prices going through the roof). That is bad policy. The government should be removing obstacles to, and funding research for, all alternatives, and let consumers select what is best for their situation.

Here is the content of the letter:

Link (http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=18704&url=)

I agree with everything except for:



This sounds too much like our government trying to pick a winner first, then fund only that choice (think of original ethanol debacle that has corn and all other food prices going through the roof). That is bad policy. The government should be removing obstacles to, and funding research for, all alternatives, and let consumers select what is best for their situation.

Problem is they can't fund everything. Choices have to be made somewhere, but they could do a lot better job of funding "fairly" and "smartly". They should try to implement results based funding a lot more. Something along the lines of McCains $300M battery development idea. Of course, this is much easier said than done. Pick tech's and ignoring others is foolish, especially when ultimate goals are similar. Case in point is when funding for battery development was severely reduced in the late 90's at the same time Hydrogen was drastically increased. The goal of being able to power cars was the same, so much less incentive based funding could probably have produced much better results by now. Then again long term technology development and fundamental research is another animal. I don't see a great way around just dividing up the limited funding as best as possible. This isn't an easy one to solve, but the process must involve people capable of understanding the scientific issues not politicians. Perhaps the grant process already does a decent job of this.

Problem is they can't fund everything. Choices have to be made somewhere, but they could do a lot better job of funding "fairly" and "smartly". They should try to implement results based funding a lot more. Something along the lines of McCains $300M battery development idea. Of course, this is much easier said than done. Pick tech's and ignoring others is foolish, especially when ultimate goals are similar. Case in point is when funding for battery development was severely reduced in the late 90's at the same time Hydrogen was drastically increased. The goal of being able to power cars was the same, so much less incentive based funding could probably have produced much better results by now. Then again long term technology development and fundamental research is another animal. I don't see a great way around just dividing up the limited funding as best as possible. This isn't an easy one to solve, but the process must involve people capable of understanding the scientific issues not politicians. Perhaps the grant process already does a decent job of this.

That's not true. If the feds didn't tax those enterprises, then the feds wouldn't have to give them any money, just let them keep using the money they already have.

I agree that we should fund many different alternative energy projects. You just don't know who is a tiny invention or a 20% efficiency increase away.

The master plan - The Apollo Energy Plan, should be able to focus on the important options but not hinder others. For example, there should be massive funding and incentives for battery research but not as much for tidal power. However, tidal power just might make sense for some applications if a great design was brought through to volume production.

For those who think we don't have enough money to fund several projects I say we can't afford not to do the research and development. Other countries are funding projects to get ahead and so must we. Funding can come in many different forms, tax incentives, prizes, guaranteed loans, grants, rights to use land, etc.

The first thing we need to do is come up with a great plan. A great plan will not be set in stone however. I must be a continuously adapting plan based on technology changes and changing global situations. Thus, The Apollo Energy Plan must be an active project that monitors progress, dispatches incentives, etc. but is always aggressively focused on the ultimate task - to transition the US to renewable and sustainable energy use.

Some people think they can come up with a workable and viable plan by getting together with their buddies over a case a beer but the situation is a lot more complicated than that. A complete structure needs to be put together. Pilot projects need to be organized and results must be analyzed. Many things need to be considered:

1) How do we get away from oil but control the petrol dollar at the same time? Since our economy is being floated right now because the US dollar is backed by oil it will make it difficult to have a financial system like we have today without dominating the oil market. This might require a slow retreat. We must eventually have a strong financial house. Live within our means and keep a trade balance. The days of just printing dollars when we need more are gone. Should be gone! The stronger our financial house is the better we will be able to handle our global competitors.

2) What technologies should be focused on. Which should be funded the most, the least?

3) What is the mix of technologies that should be used? Where should they be placed, how will they be controlled (private, public)? The entire design of the physical layout of the system. Huge project!

4) What should be the short, mid and long term strategies used?

5) What should be started right away? Things with long lead times like nuclear reactors or clean coal power plants, pumped storage hydro facilities, High voltage power lines, etc. should get underway as soon as possible. Obvious things that will be needed do not need years of impact studies. We just won’t have the time.

6) How are we going to deal with countries that will be getting less of our oil dollars? Their economies may suffer painful recessions. Although the rest of the world may soak up the excess oil, other countries may also take our lead and use what we use. Even buy our technology. Thus, the political situation could get very severe as the world changes it's mix of energy resources. Many people say just let them burn but is that really the best way to keep the peace? We should be a good neighbor the best we can. It reduces terrorism risks (people are not as angry), increases markets for our products and services, etc.

6) How are we going to build out the new smart grid? How are we going to charge people for energy and credit others? On the new smart grid people will be both users and providers of energy and energy storage. Energy will act as the new currency. It must be fair and consistent so market forces can drive new businesses.

7) How are things going to be controlled, regulated and enforced?

8) How are we going to determine how emissions are going to be handled? The rate of decreases, carbon trading? Making all burning of fossil fuels illegal? Huge penalties and taxes for fuel burning? The environmental issues need to be addressed. How are we going to allow the freedoms of our citizens to enjoy our past technologies without allowing our environment to continue to degrade. Huge issues!

Thus, if you look at all of the different issues that need to be addressed and the time-frames they needed to be decided on it is clear that a comprehensive energy plan project needs to be started. How can anyone argue that we need a great plan for such a great undertaking? A fool with a plan is better than a genius without a plan.

That's not true. If the feds didn't tax those enterprises, then the feds wouldn't have to give them any money, just let them keep using the money they already have.

Which enterprises are you referring to?

Which enterprises are you referring to?

Any / all alternative fuel tech companies from bio-diesel, ethanol, BEV, fuel cell, CNG - you name it.

The first thing they should do is cut all corn ethanol subsidies and slash funding for hybrid vehicles. That money could be put to WAY better use. Too bad both candidates seem to like biofuels thanks to all the lobbyists twisting the facts around.