Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The end of the Oil Age

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ChompySnack Donating Member (612 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:34 AM
Original message
The end of the Oil Age
“THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.” This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful thinking.

Yet a generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains addicted to Middle Eastern oil (see article). So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted since that first oil shock—and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the grip of oil and the countries that produce it.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717

I sure hope that we can get solar working before it is too late to save the ice caps...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Me too.
It's time to really start investing in solar technology to produce electricity and to promote the hybrid cars, both in improving the technology and promoting their manufacture. Oil will always be needed to fuel ships and airplanes and other heavy industrial machinery, but it's use could be cut way back.

The benefits would be cleaner air and water and safer delivery of electricity. It's time to start retiring all nuclear power plants for good as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It would also create millions of new Jobs!
So why is it not yet happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Do you think that the oil corporations

haven't thought this out a long time ago.

I don't doubt that there are plans for clean energy plants in some oil conglomerate's engineering department somwhere.

When the oil starts to get too expensive to mass produce (Presto!) we will see air, solar and maybe even fusion...all owned and created by the same power companies that are around today.

It wouldn't suprise me in the least.

</tinfoil>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. It's not happening...
because solar technology isn't advanced enough to make solar power a viable large-scale alternative. With current technology, one square metre of solar panelling produces 100 watts of energy. That's enough for one light bulb, to put it in perspective. Solar panels for large-scale energy generation would need billions of square metres of surface area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. We've got the space
in Texas and Wyoming.

I belive Yamani was cryptically referring to NUCLEAR power.


My plan: locate enough nuclear generation plants to accomodate our energy needs for the next 100 years in the middle of the country, say in......
Texas and
Wyoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Texas? How about around Crawford.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. I hear Crawford and Jackson Hole
are trying to attract new businesses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
33. Actually, Jackson and the area around it like
The Grand Tetons, Yellowstone and the Bridger wilderness areas are too beautiful to send nuclear waste to. The empty western part of Utah could work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. You're assuming "sole source" power generation...
without increased efficiency measures.

Revolutionary architect William McDonough has been approaching this very issue aggressively for the past several years. There are actually building materials out there right now that capture solar energy and can be used for the "skin" of skyscrapers. That makes the entire building (whatever side is facing the sun) an electrical generator -- and while it won't meet the needs of the entire building, it will cut back on OTHER consumption.

Another big architectural move being used now is the incorporation of SUNLIGHT into building design. Areas that are opened up to sunlight don't require nearly as much energy to light (or heat).

It's not an either/or situation. Not yet, at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. I beg to differ with you.
Solar panels, sometimes in place of roof shingles, on every building in America, where there is a surplus of sun like in the southwest, could provide the energy needs of most homes. They would be connected to a reverse meter on the power grid. If you don't get enough energy for your needs you buy the extra from the electric company, but if you produce a surplus, you sell it back to the electric company. Of course malls, hospitals and other industrial complexes need a lot more electricity than the average family home, but if most of the homes are functioning on 50% to100% solar or wind energy, imagine what a difference it would make.

It would take a government subsidy to encourage all property owners to invest in this. In Los Angeles, the Department of Water and Power is giving property owners $5,000 (guessing, because I forgot, but in the ball park) to install solar panels on a reverse meter on their buildings. If the federal government did the same, it would provide a lot of electricity even in less sunny states because the solar panels can still function on overcast days. So where is the money coming from? Isn't there $87 billion out there being talked about to enrich companies overseas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. not entirely true
If you live in Southern California and panel the roof with solar panels, that givesy ou enough power to power your house all year and give out a surplus, and that includes heating your water and urnning your heater/AC. We have a company that is figuring out how to make more efficient solar panels and how to print them up like paper out of a printer. Solar power may not have been a viable option 5 years ago, but now it looks like in a year or so it will be able to replace gas power in many places. That and wind turbines are getting more efficient all the time. I give it five years and oil WILL be obsolete with the exception of cars. And this will most certainly happen if Bush is knock out of the WH in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. Thats great for SoCal and Arizona
But its not a viable solution for everywhere. Up north here in Minny its just cloudy too often in the winter.

Its a good start, but we need cleaner central energy production as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
31. At current rates of efficiency for the most common type of PV cells
It would take less area to produce all of this nations energy needs than are currently covered by roads in this country. Common PV cells are about 13% efficient.

In the desert of the south west, there is an average of about 7.5 kilowatt hours of energy available per day per square meter. At 13%, that means that mean that about 975 watt hours can be collected per quare meter or 975 MW hours per square kilometer. In the U.S. we use about 9.531 GW hours of electricity per day. That means that is would take less than 10,000 square kilometers to produce all of the electricy that we need.

We would also need energy for transportation, but we use less energy for transportation than we do for electricity. So we could produce all of our energy needs with less than 20,000 square kilometers or 10,000 square miles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Also, there are cells that are about 35% efficient
but they are extremely expensive at this time and there is no reason to believe that will change any time soon. But the truth is that solar could produce the energy we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. Actually, ALL our energy is Solar. Except, sort of, geothermal...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. the writer is delusional
"It will take a decade or two before either fuel cells or bioethanol make a significant dent in the oil economy. Still, they represent the first serious challenges to petrol in a century."

Biofeuls are an energy sink and will never replace petroleum.
As well, fuels cells are not a source of energy and neither is
hydrogen.

Efficiency will be the only answer and that is heresy according
to the commoditizers that are in control of everything.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Efficiency?
Greater efficiency is fine but it is certainly no answer. Oil is a non-renewable resource. That means that eventually, it will all be used up. No matter how efficient we get at conservation, sooner or later, there will be no oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. true (sort of)

efficiency in use of energy could lead the way to
adoption of solar for small scale use
and lessen the amount of energy in transportation
in the short term

but in the long run we have done nothing but live
off the surplus mother nature built up over the eons

all that is coming to a crashing halt

but there will still be oil in the ground when we stop using
it because it will take more energy to extract the last
remaining barrels that the energy they will provide
thus they become unattainable



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. What in God's name are you talking about?
Biofeuls are an energy sink and will never replace petroleum.

You base this claim on what?

As well, fuels cells are not a source of energy and neither is
hydrogen.


Umm....yes, yes they are. Did you mean not a "viable" source of energy? If so I ask again, what do you base this claim on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. just the facts in the name of reality

you have to understand the amount of energy to grow and process biofuels is greater than the amount of energy produced.


"The total fossil energy expended to produce 1 liter of ethanol from corn is 10,200 kcal, but note that 1 liter of ethanol has an energy value of only 5130 kcal. Thus, there is an energy imbalance causing a net energy loss."
http://www.dieoff.org/page84.htm


as for hydrogen, it is merely a way to transport energy but it
is not an energy source. it takes energy to obtain hydrogen and
just because it is abundant does not mean that you can access it
without expending energy. IT MUST BE PRODUCED.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. While it may be true that in some cases it may take more energy to
produce biofuels than they provide, it is not true in all cases.

In some cases, the biofuel is a byproduct. If you grow a crop for food, not all of it is edible. The inedible parts can be used to energy. They energy used to grow the crop would have been used anyway, so the energy produced is free.

In this country, we produce about 3 billion gallons of waste cooking oil every year. Most of the used oil goes to waste in a manner that is bad for the environment. Waste cooking oil can be used to make bio-deisel. You need 1 gallon of methanol for 4 gallons of cooking oil, but other than that there is very little energy input.


Neither of these will meet all of our energy needs, but they can make a dent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the_real_38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. and where's solar and wind?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
5. Solar Will Never Replace Oil, Further, Solar is Very Inefficient

The reason, EROEI, or energy returned on energy invested.

Very simple idea. It takes more energy to make Solar than is returned over the useful of the Solar cells.

This not so minor detail is rarely mentioned amongst all the hype.

If you wold like to learn more, follow the links below.

Websites of interest include:

http://www.oilcrash.com/
http://www.asponews.org
http://www.gulland.ca/depletion/depletion.htm
http://www.dieoff.org/
http://www.oilanalytics.org/
http://www.greatchange.org/
http://www.oilcrisis.com/
http://www.after-oil.co.uk/
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
http://hubbert.mines.edu
http://www.museletter.com/archive/cia-oil.html

Energy Resources
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/

Alas Babylon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlasBabylon/

Running on Empty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RunningOnEmpty2/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. If I'm not mistaken
I thought I read somewhere recently that they have found a way to make solar power much, much cheaper - it may take a while to get into practical commercial use, but it was a significant savings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChompySnack Donating Member (612 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Yes, I have heard that too in Science News
They are working on a technology that is even less efficient but is an order of magnitude (10x) times cheaper. If they can pull that off then it may just become economical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
el_gato Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. cheaper in terms of energy or money?
because ultimately it will be the energy investment that really matters

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. Thank you for the links...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
26. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
and you are repeating a lie that has long ago been disproven.

First of all, you assume that photovoltiac cells are the only form of solar energy. This is totally false. PV cells are one way of collecting solar energy, but there are a number of other systems that have proven quite successful.

The Solar II Project was a very successful demonstration of an alternative method of collecting solar energy.

As far as your myth about the amount of energy required to produce a PV cell exceeding the amount of energy produced by the cell over it's life time. This is completely false. PV cells last for over 20 years and it takes between 1 and 3.5 years for them to produce the as much energy as is used to created them.

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/pdfs/24596.pdf

The truth is that solar energy is about to break out. The cost of PV cells has dropped to less than $4.00 a watt. With the price of electricity skyrocketing in places like California, the amount of time to recoup initial investment costs are also dropping.

As far as efficiency goes. The most common type of PV cells are about 13% efficient. That may seem low, but at that rate we would need to cover less area than is currently covered by roads in this country to produce all of our power needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChompySnack Donating Member (612 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
11. Solar won't work for the energy companies

The energy companies want to kill solar in the worst way, because it is a single sale solution. They can't sell fuel for it, their entire business model is based on the whole "give the razor away and sell the blades", but they don't even have to give anything away.

So one company out of 10 competing sells you a large solar array. You are good to go for decades and never need them or the power company again. That is not a business model that will make billions, which they demand. They are either going to have to seriously lower their financial expectations to embrace solar or try to kill it as competition.

I think we all know which path they have taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Almost right on....
You are right about the energy companies, but solar technology itself is way to inefficient. To power the U of Minnesota (where I work) would probably require hundreds of square miles of solar cells. And it wouldn't work on a cloudy day. We get alot of those in Minny.


We need to improve the solar technology and implement it as a supplemental source, but it is not a viable main power source. Same applies to wind power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
14. We don't have the technology to live without oil - yet.
Increased conservation, more drilling, are nothing but stopgap measures that will delay, but not avert, the catastrophic end of our current system. What we need is a massive effort, a serious commitment, to develop new energy technologies.

John Kerry's Energy Plan: Harnessing American Technology and Innovation to Make Our Nation Safer, Stronger and More Secure

Within a Decade, America Will No Longer Have to Rely on Middle East Oil

Creates 500,000 New Jobs Over the Next Decade and Provides Assistance to Assure American Industries Will Lead the New Energy Economy

John Kerry is outlining a comprehensive energy plan that will tap America’s initiative and ingenuity to strengthen our national security, grow our economy and protect our environment.

Americans spend more than $20 billion each year on oil from the Persian Gulf -- often from nations that are unstable and hostile to our interests and our values. John Kerry believes that we must end this dangerous dependence because it leaves American security and the American economy vulnerable to the vagaries of international oil markets and to those who would use oil as an economic and political weapon. It is time to break with the past and build an American energy future.

John Kerry’s plan would increase and enhance domestic energy sources and provide incentives to help Americans use energy more cleanly and efficiently. When sixty five percent of the world’s oil reserves lie beneath the Persian Gulf states and only 3 percent lie beneath America, we cannot drill our way to independence. We can, however, develop and deploy clean energy technologies that will make America more efficient and allow us to capitalize on domestic and renewable sources of energy. Kerry’s plan will also provide major new incentives to help industry convert to more efficient energy. By meeting this challenge, we will not only strengthen American security, we will grow our economy and protect our environment. Kerry’s plan to use energy more efficiently and to use more renewable energy will reduce our oil dependence by more than 2 million barrels of oil a day – about the same amount we import from the Persian Gulf today.

(1) A NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON MIDDLE EAST OIL THROUGH A NEW ENERGY SECURITY AND CONSERVATION TRUST.

Reducing our dependence on oil and building a future of clean and abundant energy are urgent national priorities. Our political system, however, does not treat them that way. Political support for research, development and deployment is supportive and so is funding through the Congressional appropriations process. John Kerry will assure that the nation is on track to reduce oil dependence by creating an Energy Security and Conservation Trust Fund capitalized by existing oil and gas royalty revenues and dedicated to accelerating the commercialization of technologies that will reduce America’s dangerous dependence on oil.

* Royalties Should Be Used to Improve Public Lands or Energy Independence. Energy companies pay the federal government royalty rents and bonuses for the right to drill for oil and gas on public land, onshore and offshore. A portion of this revenue was intended to fund critical land conservation parks and recreation resources. John Kerry believes that this commitment must be honored and that a portion of these revenues, derived from our ongoing use of public fossil energy resources, should be invested to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. Unfortunately, each year, much of this money goes into general revenue accounts, leaving critical energy projects go unfunded.

* The Trust Fund Would Protect Conservation Priorities. First, the Trust Fund would assure that existing conservation programs – such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund – are fully funded. John Kerry will make good on this long-neglected promise to the American people.

* The Trust Fund Would Guarantee the Nation is Moving Toward Energy Independence. The Trust Fund will allocate $20 billion over the next decade to reduce oil dependence and create a cleaner and more reliable energy future. These resources will help fund the manufacture of more efficient cars and trucks, the development of biofuels, the creation of a hydrogen-based energy economy and other technologies that can reduce America’s dependence on oil.

(2) REDUCE OIL DEPENDENCE BY INCREASING FUEL EFFICIENCY NOW AND NEW INCENTIVES TO MAKE SURE AMERICAN INDUSTRIES LEAD THE WAY.

Nearly 70 percent of the oil America consumes is burned in cars, trucks, trains, planes and automobiles. America must and can develop domestic, clean energy technologies that will enhance efficiency and reduce oil use in the transportation sector. Any energy plan that lacks a strategy to make today’s transportation sector more efficient will fail to reduce our nation’s oil dependence in the coming decades and will leave the American economy more vulnerable to the global oil market. John Kerry believes we can build more efficient cars and trucks in a way that creates jobs and provides American families with the vehicles they demand. He also believes that we must produce reliable, domestic biofuels that will diversify our fuel supply and that we must start today to develop the hydrogen-based energy economy of tomorrow. John Kerry’s strategy for leadership includes both near term progress to reduce our oil dependence and a true national commitment – not just lip service – to build a hydrogen-fueled transportation future.

Setting Goals to Increase Fuel Efficiency and New Investments to Assure American Industry Leads the Way.

* Making America’s Cars More Efficient. John Kerry believes that all Americans should drive the cars, SUVs, minivans and trucks of their choice, but that these vehicles can be more efficient, safe and affordable. John Kerry believes that we need a strong and realistic fuel economy standard, coupled with tax incentives for consumers to buy the vehicles they want and incentives for manufacturers to convert factories to build the more efficient vehicles of the future. It will enhance national security, strengthen the American auto industry, and protect and create jobs.

* Saving Two Million Barrels of Oil a Day – As Much As We Currently Import From the Middle East. John Kerry supports updating CAFE standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015. This proposal will reduce America’s dependence on oil by saving 2 million barrels of oil per day – almost as much as we currently import from the Persian Gulf. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, smog and ozone pollution. The National Academy of Sciences confirmed that fuel efficiency can be significantly improved through better use of technology, without limiting vehicle choice, without harming safety and without injury to the industry.
* New Incentives to Help Convert American Industries to Lead the Way in the New Energy Economy. John Kerry believes that the American auto industry should lead the world in building and selling efficient vehicles. He believes that the nation – drawing on the resources of the Energy Security and Conservation Trust – should provide assistance to American manufacturers for the conversion of existing vehicle and parts plants to build more efficient hybrid and other advanced technology vehicles. This assistance will help manufacturers accelerate the pace of conversion of their factories, make efficient vehicles available sooner, reduce oil dependence faster, and protect jobs in communities across the country.
* Helping Americans Drive More Efficient Cars. John Kerry believes that we must also provide consumers with incentives to purchase advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles. The key to Kerry’s approach is to make the marketplace friendlier to these cleaner energy vehicles, which will include cars, SUVs, minivans, pickups, buses and trucks. Consumer tax credits will spur demand, stimulate the market, and enable manufacturers to increase production and lower costs. It is a way to help move technologies off the drawing board, into production and onto the road.

* Increasing Renewable Fuels in America’s Gasoline: 5 Billion Gallons in the Next Decade. John Kerry believes that renewable fuels, produced in America, can reduce our oil dependence. Renewable fuel produced from corn and other sources – such as agricultural, forest and food wastes – has a strong foothold in the market and great potential. John Kerry supports a national standard that will ensure that at least 5 billion gallons of renewable fuel is part of America’s energy supply by 2012. A strong renewable fuels standard will reduce our oil dependence, improve the quality of our environment, and strengthen the economy of rural America.

A Plan to Use Hydrogen Throughout the Nation By 2020

While John Kerry believes our nation needs a strategy to reduce dependence on oil today, he knows we can harness technological innovation and ingenuity to develop a hydrogen-based economy for the future. Hydrogen has great promise as a clean, domestic and reliable energy source for the future. It has the potential to power our cars at 100 miles per gallon without pollution and, with the right technology, can be produced efficiently from natural gas and coal. Eventually, John Kerry believes that we can build a truly clean and secure economy based on hydrogen -- a clean fuel that we can eventually get entirely from renewable sources from our farms, the wind, solar energy, hydropower and geothermal sources.

Despite hydrogen’s great potential, we must recognize that we cannot convert to hydrogen overnight. Today, a car fueled by hydrogen costs as much as $500,000 and there are only scattered efforts to develop the infrastructure necessary to make this a reality. So while the Bush Administration calls for every child born today to drive a hydrogen car, it does nothing to improve the quality of the air that child will breathe growing up or make sure that the child grows up in an America less threatened by our dangerous dependence on oil. The Bush Administration’s vision on hydrogen is akin to setting a goal to cure cancer decades from now and doing nothing to treat the millions who will get cancer in the meantime. That is why we need to improve vehicle fuel efficiency in the near term, while we work to develop the hydrogen-based energy economy of tomorrow. John Kerry’s plan includes:

* Uniting Scientists and Researchers to Develop a New Energy Economy by 2020. Today, there are scattered efforts around the country to develop the infrastructure to supply, and systems to utilize, hydrogen as a fuel. Reaching our goal requires additional research, but we also need a new coordinated effort to harness the potential of America’s scientists and researchers in the public and private sectors. The Hydrogen Institute would provide $10 billion to fund research efforts to help solve critical problems, such as infrastructure needs and configuration. It will help address fundamental questions such as whether hydrogen be piped to the filling stations of the future or will it be produced on the spot, or in vehicle on-board systems? The Institute would also support efforts to develop the codes and standards that will ensure the safety of a major hydrogen infrastructure.

* Putting 100,000 Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles on the Road by 2010 and 2.5 Million by 2020. John Kerry will challenge the new Hydrogen Institute to develop a roadmap to get 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road by 2010 and 2.5 million by 2020. He will start by making sure the federal government does its part by committing to getting 20,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles into the federal government fleet by 2010. Kerry will also bring state and local governments to the table to encourage innovation that moves America closer to a hydrogen-based energy economy. For example, Michigan has a program that provides tax credits for companies that come to the state to invest in these technologies.

(3) PRODUCING CLEAN ENERGY AND CREATING JOBS WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY. Just as renewable fuels can help reduce oil dependence, they can create electricity and enhance our electricity markets. Renewable energy will diversify our electricity supply, ease price shocks and help protect our environment. And together these abundant renewable energy sources can build the backbone of a long-term hydrogen economy.

* Assuring 20 Percent of Electricity Comes From Renewable Sources by 2020. John Kerry believes that America needs a national market for electricity produced from renewable energy, such as wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydrogen. John Kerry supports a national goal of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. States have shown that we can significantly increase renewable energy sources. Texas is on track to reach its renewable target by 2004 instead of the proposed year of 2009 and California derives 13 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. The tremendous disparity in state renewable energy programs, however, illustrates the need for a national renewable electricity standard. This standard will encourage the market to respond by finding the most efficient and effective way of meeting that goal through a credit trading system.

Transitioning to Renewable Energy Creates Jobs While Strengthening National Security.
Economists and government experts predict that policies to bolster energy efficiency and renewable energy will create hundreds of thousands of good American jobs throughout the construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and transportation sectors. John Kerry believes that it is time we invest in American workers, American innovation and American energy independence.

* Making Energy a Cash Crop. Clean energy, including biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel, and wind power are cash crops that can create jobs and provide new income streams for farmers, ranchers, rural small businesses and rural communities. Economists estimate that the John Kerry-supported renewable fuels standard will create 214,000 American jobs.
* Helping Small Farmers Who Want to Produce Renewable Energy. John Kerry supports making the Small Ethanol Producer Credit more workable for farmers by applying the 10-cents per gallon production tax credit to small farmer-owned cooperatives. Local co-ops across Iowa and the Midwest are building ethanol plans, cultivating switch grass, and turning soybeans into diesel fuel and industrial lubricants. Cooperatives are one of the keys to the future of rural America and John Kerry believes government has a role to play in keeping them viable.
* Using More Fuels From Crops and Waste. Ethanol production accounts for over $3 billion a year in economic activity and new forms of ethanol from waste biomass (cellulosic ethanol) promises a bright new source of income for America’s farmers and foresters. John Kerry will also use the Energy Security and Conservation Trust to accelerate the research needed to fulfill the great promise of new forms of ethanol from biomass, such as crop and forest waste, that will reduce our oil dependence and provide an entirely new cash crop for America’s farmers and foresters. He will also support bonds and other means to help create biomass factories and refineries.
* Supplying More Electricity with Wind. Wind power was the fastest growing source of electricity generation worldwide over the last decade. Because so much of it may be found in the nation’s heartland, wind power has the added potential to reinvigorate the nation’s farming communities, providing steady income through lease or royalty payments to farmers and to other landowners. Wind power has the added benefit of producing no harmful pollutants or greenhouse gases.

* Good Jobs Manufacturing Clean Energy. Investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy will create hundreds of thousands of quality jobs. Clean energy technology will be designed, developed and built here in America and exported to the world. Investment in more efficient transportation, such as commuter and intercity rail, will create jobs in manufacturing, construction and operations. The development of wind, geothermal, hydrogen, solar power and other renewable energy will create jobs in manufacturing and building. Biomass development will create jobs in construction, refining and distribution. And investment in energy efficient buildings will create jobs in retrofitting existing building stock. The Tellus Institute predicts that federal policies – including many in the Kerry plan – to bolster clean energy will create more than 700,000 jobs by 2010 and 1.3 million jobs by 2020.

Encouraging Technologies and Innovation to Bring a New Energy Future. Whether it is developing renewable fuels or a more efficient way of using electricity, many clean energy projects don’t get built because sponsors don’t have the ability to raise capital, even with projects that demonstrate attractive financial returns and strong credit and security structures. John Kerry believes that we should improve access to financing for clean energy products.

* Encouraging Investment and Exploration in Clean Renewable Energy Project. John Kerry believes we should extend the Production Tax Credit for renewable sources of energy such as wind and biomass. Kerry will also broaden the Production Tax Credit so that a greater range of financial investors in renewable energy projects and wholesale purchasers of renewable energy can make use of the credit. This will help attract the capital necessary to get these projects built.

* Encouraging More Investments in New Technologies and Innovations That Bring a Cleaner Future. Already several large institutional investors have begun exploring major investments in this area and private equity funds are being raised to meet the growing demand. At the same time, the federal government needs to do its part to encourage this investment. Beyond the Production Tax Credit, John Kerry will provide federal regulatory and policy support to stimulate investments in renewable energy, with mechanisms such as loan guarantees for appropriate projects, and federal electricity rules that improve the way intermittent sources like solar and wind are valued by utilities through dispatch mechanisms, net metering, and interconnection standards. He’ll also make sure that clean air regulations take proper account of the environmental benefits of renewable energy, and again, he’ll help level the playing field for renewable energy by adopting a federal renewable portfolio standard.

(4) MAKING OUR HOMES, OFFICES, AND CITIES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. John Kerry believes that a unit of energy saved is as important as a unit of energy produced. For example, the American economy is twice as efficient today as it was some 30 years ago. In part, that’s because we accomplish more with less through efficient technologies. But studies by the Department of Energy and other agencies show that we can save significantly more energy through advances in energy efficient technologies – heating, lighting and manufacturing – that only need to be implemented. John Kerry believes that the government should promote the efficient use of energy in the places that we work and live.

The Federal Government Will Lead the Way By Cutting It’s Energy Bill

* Cutting the Government’s Energy Bill 20 percent by 2020. John Kerry believes that the U.S. government – probably the single largest user of energy in the world – should lead by example. In 1999, the Federal Government spent $7.9 billion on energy. Kerry will require that federal agencies submit annual plans to achieve this goal and will develop incentives for agencies and managers to comply. Federal managers across many agencies have already proven they know how to cut energy bills and save precious taxpayer dollars in our government’s 500,000 buildings. When fully implemented, this plan will save at least $1.6 billion and it will save an estimated $8 billion over the next ten years.
* Challenging Municipalities, Corporations, Universities, Small Businesses and Hospitals to Establish the Same 20% Energy Efficiency Goal. A Kerry Administration will establish a task force comprised of representatives from public and private institutions, which are large energy users, to increase energy efficiency. The task force will determine how best to increase efficiency by purchasing and installing more efficient heating and cooling systems, industrial equipment, appliances, and indoor and outdoor lighting, as well as promoting more efficient building, landscaping and transportation designs. Officials in the city of Portland, Oregon estimated that by implementing energy efficiency programs in their public buildings, they were able to save $1.1 million on energy costs annually, for a total savings of $9.46 million since 1991.

Making America’s Communities More Energy Efficient.
* Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Buildings and Homes. To help families reduce their utility bills, John Kerry will provide consumers with a credit to purchase equipment that meet energy-efficiency standards for heating and cooling in their new homes, and to retrofit existing homes. Kerry will encourage builders to build energy efficient homes with a 20 percent tax credit for the purchase of energy efficient building equipment, including electric heat pumps, hot water heaters, and natural gas heat pumps. This step would also significantly help ease natural gas prices.

* Supporting Smarter Growth and Better Transportation Choices. John Kerry supports directing more of our transportation resources to support smart-growth strategies and more transportation choices. He also encourages Fannie Mae to promote location efficient mortgages that reward building and buying near public transit. This will not only reduce urban sprawl but will reduce our oil dependence.

(5) A NEW NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY PARTNERSHIP TO EXPAND THE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS. Natural gas, the cleanest form of fossil fuel, has historically been in abundant supply at a reasonable cost. However, many fear that supply shortages may cause persistently high prices over the next several years. High prices for this fuel hurt lower and middle class families since heat and power are essential services. American families will bear the cost of increased prices for electricity and heating and for goods produced using natural gas. Natural gas, for example, is used in producing fertilizer and other products and as a fuel for industrial processes and producing electricity. These higher costs will hinder economic recovery. John Kerry believes it is imperative that we begin to address not only the supply and demand sides of the equation, but the short-term and long-term challenges for natural gas as well.

Assuring a Fair Marketplace

* Providing Effective Market Monitoring and Enforcement. While much of the expected pressure on the natural gas market is due to supply shortages, there have been abuses in the market for natural gas – such as alleged manipulation of capacity in the western markets, inaccurate filing of trade data – that ultimately have an adverse effect on the prices consumers pay. John Kerry will make sure that any abuses are dealt with effectively and prevented from reoccurring. This will require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be more diligent and aggressive in pursuing anti-competitiveness practices.

Pursuing Opportunities to Tap Natural Gas in Environmentally Safe Ways

* North American Energy Initiative. John Kerry believes that the United States should reach out and develop a long-term partnership with our immediate neighbors and friends Canada and Mexico to develop and expand North America's robust energy supplies. By looking beyond our borders, as well as to our nation's huge stranded gas supplies on the North Slope of Alaska, we have the potential to secure long-term energy supplies that help meet our demand for energy. For example, Canada has huge stranded natural gas capacity that has no way to reach major markets, and Mexico likewise lacks an adequate energy infrastructure to allow it to tie into major North American energy markets. Presidential leadership must be interjected into this equation, and John Kerry would make this a priority issue with our North American neighbors.

* Developing Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the North Slope of Alaska that have no way to get to markets in the lower 48 states. John Kerry believes that we must build the Alaska pipeline to expand natural gas as a resource and provide important jobs for American workers. As President, John Kerry would bring together the States, Native Americans, producers, pipeline companies, Canada and other interested parties to make this a domestic priority, including providing appropriate regulatory streamlining to get this project built.

* Encouraging Development in the Gulf of Mexico. John Kerry supports developing natural gas sources in the Gulf of Mexico on areas already open for drilling. He supports temporary incentives that encourage development in this area.

Assuring Natural Gas Can Be Delivered – Safely and Reliably

* Enhancing Infrastructure to Help Supply Natural Gas More Effectively. We need a domestic pipeline infrastructure that is capable of delivering natural gas where it is needed, when it is needed, in a safe and reliable manner. For example, the lack of pipeline infrastructure may be impeding development of natural gas on public and private lands on the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains, which are believed to hold very significant reserves of natural gas. Over 60 percent of the natural gas reserves in this region are available for lease under standard lease terms, according to a recent government report. John Kerry’s plan would ensure that we develop needed pipeline infrastructure and supplies in appropriate areas in an environmentally sound and safe manner.

* Improving Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Transportation Systems. There are ways in which we can improve our ability to import natural gas from reliable foreign sources. The current infrastructure for importing natural gas from overseas is limited as the natural gas must be liquefied at super cold temperatures for shipping overseas and returned to gas form before it can be put in the domestic pipeline system. There are currently only four terminals in the U.S. where liquefied natural gas is delivered and these facilities often raise challenging local issues. John Kerry would support new technologies under development to address some of the local concerns about this transportation system, including development of ship-based regasification systems that would allow the LNG to be regasified offshore and moved to shore by connecting to underwater pipelines.

* Increase the Efficiency of Natural Gas Use. Advanced technologies, commercially available today, can dramatically increase the efficiency of natural gas use for power generation and end use applications, including heating and cooling. For example, combined heat and power systems which provide both electric and thermal energy to commercial and industrial users can achieve efficiencies greater than 70%, compared with power plants that operate often at half that level. And gas-fired appliances available today can substantially cut homeowners natural gas bills which may hit record levels this winter.

(6) MAKING COAL PART OF THE 21ST CENTURY ENERGY SOLUTION
For too long there has been a deadlock between those who support using coal and those who support improving the environment. George Bush tells coal producing regions to fight environmental protections because they will hurt the industry. Others believe there is no future for coal. The reality, however, is that coal is an abundant domestic fuel that is used to produce more than one-half of our electric power. John Kerry believes that coal should be part of the solution to our energy and environmental challenges and that we need to forge a new way to harness technology to develop and deploy clean electric power from coal. At the same time, John Kerry believes that we need clear benchmarks and a flexible framework by which to measure the emissions performance of existing and new uses of coal.

* Making Coal Part of the Clean Energy Solution and Strengthen the Economy in States and Regions Engaged in Coal Production and Use. John Kerry believes that we need leadership to lower the four leading power plant emissions – nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide. He also is committed to helping the coal industry and the communities that support it be part of America’s energy future. He wants to make the coal industry part of the effort in developing and implementing new cleaner coal technology. John Kerry believes we must invest $10 billion over the next decade – a five-fold increase – to help transition from the current generation of older and dirtier coal plants to cleaner and more advanced coal-fired power plants Kerry believes we must also invest in new research that can make sure clean coal is a major contributor in meeting future energy needs, including playing an important part in the production of hydrogen. This approach will be good for the environment and public health and will assure coal workers and their families are an important part of the next generation of energy technology for our nation.

(7) REDIRECTING UNWARRANTED SUBSIDIES TO INVEST IN THE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES OF THE FUTURE. John Kerry’s plan does not necessarily spend more than the Republican energy bill, he just has different priorities. While John Kerry wants to invest in renewable energy that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the Republican bills advocate big subsidies for large, well-financed energy companies. The House Republican energy bill authorizes billions in new spending and tax cuts for the industry. The Senate bill also has subsidies for the industry. John Kerry believes we need an energy policy that puts federal resources into creating the technologies that will create energy security, create jobs and protect the environment. At the same time, John Kerry believes that the nation can save money through targeted policies to improve the management of energy and public resources. For example, we can modernize the sale of mineral rights on public land by ending the sale of public land rights at $5 per acre and save $519 million over five years. John Kerry’s plan to cut electricity in the Federal government would save $8 billion over the next ten years. And John Kerry would close a loophole that allows small-business owners to deduct $100,000 for luxury sport-utility vehicles through a law meant to benefit farmers and others from being penalized by the luxury tax when they purchase pickup trucks and tractors.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy_security.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. I don't think we can ever live without oil,
but by utilizing and improving on alternate technologies, we can conserve the oil supplies that we do have for the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feanorcurufinwe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Eventually, we will have to
whether it's 2100, 2150, 2200 -- eventually there will come a time that there is no oil left to burn. Either we will live without it, or die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Hopefully, we will have developed enough alternative
technologies by then to not need it anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
17. Slashdot also has the story....
Here:

Slashdot Story


Go see what the geeks think about this too. Some good analysis and some crap. Like always.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
28. If we spent a billion dollars a week
on switching to alternative sources of energy instead of spending a billion dollars a week rebuilding Iraq, we would have security, jobs and a cleaner environment within 5 years.

If you want to spend a measly mil here and there it will take decades.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. The problem with your analogy is that for all intents and purposes
the world is already out of oil. There are about 1 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves left in the world. Expert don't believe that any substantial reserves remain to be found. Currently anual oil consumption for the world is about 30 billion barrels or about 3% of all reserves, but this number is rising. That means that there is less than a 30 year supply of oil remaining and we don't have to be completely out of oil before the supply starts to tighten and prices start to sky rocket.

Up until recently the rate of increase in would oil production has exceed the rate of increase in consumption, but sometime in the first decade of the 21st century it is predicted that the rate of increase in comsumptioin will exceed the rate of increase in production. In all likelyhood this has already happened. As consumption begins to grow faster than production, the oil supply will tighten and prices will skyrocket. This will happen in the next ten years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'm gonna get flamed for this....
But I think that we should invest in some new technology nuclear power.

The fact is that coal burning plants release more radiation into the environment then nuclear plants produce, and not the kind of radiation that we can put in casks and contain. It goes into the air people.

Because wind/solar/geothermal/tidal energy collection just does not cut it yet either technologically nor economically nor space wise (for solar and wind), and fusion is still decades away, I think that nuclear is a good choice.

France gets most of its power from nuclear energy and they even have enough to export.

With new and safer designs then have been used in the past, we can have a good way of generating electricity while producing the least total amount of environmental harm. By using breeder reactors we will produce much less amounts of waste. Breeder reactors due produce plutonium, but I feel that the cost of securely guarding plutonium for a long time is worth it.

I do of course believe that we need to dramatically increase our use of solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy production, but in general those sources only can act as a supplemental energy source and not as primary energy production.


To counter a few arguments pre-emptively....

The US millitary can produce as much plutonium as they need whether or not the nation is benefitting from the power generated by doing so or not. It won't mean more nukes.

We already have alot of nuclear waste that has to be put somewhere. Adding more to it does not mean that we need to have more then one facility to store it because the amount of waste produced just isn't that physically large. So basically, some place in the US will have to bite the bullet and act as a storage base for nuclear waste whether anyone likes it or not. The present solution of storing the waste at each reactor site simply will not work in the long term and is more dangerous to the environment as a whole.

New breeder reactor technology is much safer then what has been used in the past. That means no Chernolbyls or Three Mile Islands.

The current situation is bad for both the enviroment, the economy and our foreign relations. Changing to something that makes even one of these situations better would be better.



Now go ahead and flame away.... I'm just looking for a stop-gap until we can have viable nuclear fusion for power generation anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. -
:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abaques Donating Member (253 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-03 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. Haha!
Nice flame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC