Despite all the "post 9/11" Bush errors of judgement (not to mention his "staff"), pre 9/11 he actually had a couple of good ideas in his agenda. One of these, reduction in oil dependency, was one of the better ones.
The problem remains how to go about it. Two MAIN thrusts:
1) Reduction of automobile use.
2) Elimination of oil/gas for electricity generation.
We look at Nr 2 first, because solving it will allow the implementation of Nr 1 to go "easier". There exists an immediate remedy for oil/gas fueled generator plants. Coal, of which the US has a great abundance, and nuclear power, enjoying a comeback despite years of hinderance at the hands of environmentalists, who, in retrospect, may be partly blamed for some of the resultant "global warming".
Coal, a dirty burning fuel, would have to be carefully "scrubbed" if used in new plants. All the ramifications, I profess ignorance of, but I intend "coal" to be but a short term stopgap vis-a-vis oil anyway.
Nuclear power is relatively neutral to the environment, yet the residual fuel elements are deadly and difficult to store permanently.
So, to produce the electricity needed, for the short term we will need coal, for the middle term nuclear, for the future we will need geothermal. If we put our efforts and engineering skills into geothermal development.... there, my friends, is an unlimited supply of energy. As long as there exists gravity, there will be heat at the center of this planet. This heat can be tapped to produce electricity, in abundance.
Engineering problems? To be sure, but we sent a number of men to the moon using antiquated 60's technology, why not expend the same level of intensity toward solving the problems associated with geothermal power?
(Any engineers out there with info?)
Once we are producing electricity in abundance, we can pay more attention to Nr 1. With enough electricity, motor vehicles can be replaced with golf cart type "commuters" and bicycles (or tricycles for those of you who need more "storage area").
How many vehicles can be replaced with golf carts for less than ten mile commutes? I suspect millions. How many vehicles can be replaced with bikes for less than five mile commutes? I suspect millions more.
If you think about it, there are many benefits to using the aforementioned alternatives to cars. Cost benefits amongst them. How about traffic congestion? How about parking problems? How about saving lives via traffic accident reduction? (Particularly if certain streets/roads/pathways are limited to carts/bikes only.)
Throw on top of that an electric driven "light rail" system imbedded on remaining "all car" streets/roads.... well, you can see the beginnings of considerable savings in oil consumption.
I "commuted" to work (6.3 miles away) during the last year before I retired via bike, except for inclimate weather days. Driving took me 15 minutes to make the route, biking took me 22 minutes. (That's for you time sensitive types.) I lost 10 pounds over the year, overall, and my legs were in the best shape physically than they had been in years. This despite the fact that I have an degenerative arthritic knee that my orthopedic surgeon has been dying to replace for five years now. It can be done!
The net effect of adoption of the above would do wonders for reducing oil consumption, reducing the obesity problem in this country, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Lots of good things, global warming notwithstanding!
All we have to do is convince the average american that a vehicle is a method by which one gets from point A to point B..... NOT a prestige symbol, NOT a manifestation of "macho-ism", NOT a device for on-road NASCAR practice, NOT a life support system for an 800 watt stereo and definitely NOT a quiet place for incessant cell phone yacking!
Oh.... we would probably have to invest in Government Schools to reteach the art of "walking" to many Americans.
Oh well..... like all good ideas, perhaps I ask too much.
Halfback
