Has the US Dept of Energy produced anything useful in the last 25 years?
101318
I work in the oil industry as a geologist and I can wholeheartedly say we use DOE research results all the time. From my experience I believe that the DOE has made a significant enough contribution to things like secondary oil recovery methods and reservoir characterization to have paid for the studies it has done many times over in increased tax revenues from oil production. They are saving you from paying more taxes, not wasting your money.\n\nUnfortunately, studies like fracture research and enhanced tertiary recovery of oil, or basin center gas don't make very good press releases because few people understand what they are about. Methanol and hydrogen do get good press (and to be fair the work is useful to industry), so this is what you hear about unless you deal with DOE directly. Don't listen to the politicians who are only pandering to the public with buzzwords they think will generate votes.\n\nHere's an example of a less than press-worthy product from DOE:\nhttp://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06003-Supercement_Applied_Successfully.html
927848
Gas futures rose as a result of the Democrats taking office, knowing full well that they do not comprehend the importance of this resource!\n\nThanks so much for asking! I'm glad I could clear that up for you!
445381
Global warming is real and America is contributing at least 25% by emitting carbon dioxide gases.
562675
No.\n\nWe (the USA) have the best technology to do it and we use it to the fullest extent possible.
171959
It's timely that you ask this question - I am currently reading the book, "The End of Oil," which addresses this very issue.  I've only just begun the book, but it looks like we have another 30 years before the oil supply will start seeing a sharp decrease.  The fall in the oil supply will coincide with an increase in demand for energy, which spells TROUBLE.  Hopefully within 30 years time our brilliant engineers and scientists will have come up with a solution to the volatile and dangerous nature of hydrogen...
1089714
No, if every row crop in the U.S. was corn and all of the corn was used for ethynol it would only meet 25% of the U.S. petroleum needs.
337234
The answer to most of the US's problems is our dependency on oil.  Not only for automotive fuel but also for energy generation and heating.  We need to find cheaper and more efficient ways to handle these issues and soon.
420427
Yes it is but not with the US Government in control. Efficiency has never been welcome on any government control ed or regulated business.  You see how they run a railroad don't you?
193951
Oil officials 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago said AT THAT TIME that we were going to use up what was known to be total global "proven oil reserves." We keep finding more total oil reserves every few years than was thought to exist worldwide a few years previous - kind of funny logic, isn't it? If we keep finding more oil that exceeded known reserves just a few years back, then what are we so concerned about? Interestingly enough, at the same time we keep finding more proven oil reserves, people keep screaming more and more that we are running out of oil - who is right? History says we can keep finding oil, so maybe there is a regenerative process unknown to the scientific community - they can't possibly know everything about everything. \n\nOnly one thing is certain in SCIENCE: it IS ALWAYS CHANGING. Geologists have been getting better year after year at locating oil reserves, and yet so little is known about oil reserves other than location. What is understood to be fact now will be ridiculed in the future by new theories - which have already happened. They thought we couldn't use most crude oil in the early 20th century because nobody knew about cracking or synthesis of crude products, so they just dumped unusable crude products that were not immediately usable as gasoline or diesel. We have come very far since that time in chemistry alone. \n\nIsn't it interesting that what is vaguely understood by a few scientists is continuously spouted as "truth" by those who know far less. SCIENTIFIC FACT IS CHANGEABLE, meaning it can be tested, and if a different result occurs, then the theory changes, resetting what is known as "fact." Oil may be replenishable, and may not necessarily only come from prehistoric plants and animals as current thought suggests. You raise an interesting argument about oil resources, and only the future will let us know for sure - but there will be a definitive answer. Now, who is ready for the truth?
1165144
Oprah says YES! the u.s makes 25% of the global warming products!
192391
Will kid, it will be along time coming,President Richard M Nixon had quite allot of wells caped in the 70's Saving them as reserves for the faucher. And there are several undrilled wells to be drilled.We don't need Aarika oil,It just makes money for the Bush family,and there crone's. When the time Com's we can use synthetics,Alcohol burns rill good.NASCAR has bin using it for years.And NANSA has bin using hydrogen for year's as well.
900566
Hey, how is it going? I'm not an specialist in oil research, but I had to do a report on the increment of city revenues - the main source it's a oil refinery.\nThere are two good websites: World Energy Outlook and the Energy Information Administration (EIA).\nThe reports on the EIA are much more comprehensive and have projections until 2030. There's also access to previous reports.\nI hope that information will help you!
1020669
On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into the law the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides a variety of tax incentives for homeowners, businesses, and manufacturers for purchase of energy efficient equipment and buildings, which will be available after January 1, 2006 and before December 31, 2007.\n\nThe Department of the Treasury has amended tax form 1040 to include a line for energy tax credits in the tax credit section and has issued regulations specifying what energy efficiency equipment and improvements for residential buildings qualify for tax credits. However, final IRS guidance on commercial buildings is still under development. These resources provide information on what is currently known about the new tax incentives and will be updated as more information becomes available.
1059584
NO IN NEAR FUTURE.\n PROBABLY COUPLE OF DECADES LATER.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
493980
Yes, oil.  It's the easy thing to do.  After we found it, it was a gold mine because of the easy energy.  Later on, we'll pay for that dependence.  Humans have almost always gone for short-term gains over long-term common sense.\n\nMany Americans are dependent on Social Security/welfare and aren't saving for retirement.\n\nWe are probably too dependent on electronics and computers these days.  If there was a nuclear bomb dropped and it knocked out electronics, the world wouldn't be happy at all.
673700
actualy, we have been doing it for a number of years. the only problem, is that we havent been able to create an environment that can eficiently retain the energy, the end result is always the same. we end up investing more energy than we can gain from it. we are working on one that is basicaly garentied to create more energy than we invest. the only problem is that the project is way over buget(like a billion dolars).