Being of two minds on Obama's energy plans...

[Cleobulus]

First, I applaud him for encouraging the building of more nuclear plants, and subsidies to help fund the building of them. Getting rid of our dependence on coal and natural gas for electricity production is perhaps even more important than making us less dependent on oil.

Frankly, nuclear power plants, especially compared to coal power plants, are a hell of a lot cleaner and environmentally friendly. Coal sends all sorts of contaminants into the environment that poison our water, air, and even the ground. Even radioactive isotopes are spewed from their smoke stacks, and even with capturing technologies to "clean up" the air, all it does is throw those contaminants into our ground water supplies, streams, and lakes.

Nuclear power plants do have problems, but they aren't nearly as continuous, and are of a relatively small scale, especially when they are properly maintained, funded, and new technologies in reducing contaminants are developed. Frankly, I'd be happy if we were able to replace every coal firing plant in the country with a nuclear one as soon as possible.

That being said, we should continue to try to supplement and replace fossil fuel burning power plants with as many alternatives as possible, its just that nuclear plants are well established and also have the advantage of working in every climate and location.

As far as allowing offshore drilling, well, that really depends on whether it will actually happen or not. Frankly, most oil companies are NOT going to risk the investment in offshore oil infrastructure to drill dry holes, and the risk of there being a lot of dry holes drilled off the coasts of the United States is huge. So, give them the permits, and they most likely will not use them until they feel oil prices rise high enough to make it worth their while.

Frankly, this is the problem, even the most wildly optimistic estimates of oil reserves off the coasts is literally a drop in the bucket compared to current consumption of oil in the United States. Give it 10-20 years, and it will maybe drop gas prices by a few cents, if that, and that's being optimistic. It will not do anything to reduce our reliance on foreign based oil.

I think Obama is thinking of "allowing" offshore drilling just for political reasons, even USGS scientists think it isn't worth it to drill there. Its a great way to defang a Republican talking point, as long as its limited to just "allowing" the drilling to theoretically happen sometime in the indeterminate future. Of course, if it went any further than that, with the offer of subsidies, tax breaks, etc. to ENCOURAGE drilling, then that's a bad idea.

[sandnsea]

1. A drop in the bucket in 10-20 years

So as Salazar said, it's no panacea.

We're still going to have to move to alternative energies.

[Cleobulus]

2. Its like ANWR, Republicans were harping on it like it was a panacea...

that will solve our oil problems. They neglected to mention that the most optimistic estimates of the reserves there was a total of 300 days worth of oil at current U.S. consumption levels.

[nemo137]

3. This is pretty much how I feel.

I'm not sold on the off-shore drilling, and I've been hearing stuff today that suggests that nothing is going to come of it, but I'm still a little baffled.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Not to mention, I don't think there's any energy source that'll please more than about 30% of DUers

edit: So just get used to complaining, no matter what the suggestion is. Sometimes complaining for good reason, sometimes not.

[sandnsea]

5. That's very true

Some prefer coal over nuclear, others nuclear over coal. Others prefer natural gas which involves drilling. Then there's biofuel which has its own set of problems. People don't want unsightly oil wells, but have no respect for people who find windmills unsightly. They're testing wave energy here, but they're wanting to put them in prime crabbing grounds. Everything has its upside and downside.

[Cleobulus]

6. I think the key is diversification...

and have many different sources of energy that are NOT based on fossil fuels, which have far too many problems. Some sources can only be, at best, supplements, at least on Earth, such as solar and wind, while others can outright replace fossil fuel based electricity production such as nuclear and geothermal. And also we should further develop more "cutting edge" technologies such as fusion, space based solar satellites, etc.

[SpartanDem]

7. The point about it just being for political purposes is very valid

oil companies as it is aren't seeking more permits in current areas. Given that it may take a decade to start drilling and what's happening with clean energy technology it's very doubtful that any drilling will ever take place.

[zbiker]

8. this is very true

with all the government regulations forced upon companies to permit and proceed with getting production ranging from environmental and social issues it's a wonder any well gets drilled at all. i know here in wyoming (the powder river basin) that the cbm (natural gas) wells were almost all drilled with simple water well rigs because they were so close to the suffice not to mention that the water from the exposed coal seams had run into the natural drainages for centuries with no ill effects, but when someone discovered that they could produce cbm and their was a ready market the environmentalists flew into action. now to get a well drilled and put into production is such a daunting task that most will not touch it.
even now they are moving to start putting the breaks on our wind energy development programs. one has to shake his head in frustration. seems the economic numbers concerning unemployment means little to them, with so many needed to work and develop these, it sure couldn't hurt to bring the economie back a little.