why doesnt Bush decide to run on solar power instead of oil? it is easier and less pollution on the world!?
957714
Bush,his father, and friends have been in the oil business for decades.  They are all in it for the money, and have a long history of stopping anything that is an alternative, the Rife Microscope for one.  If it is not oil, coal, natural gas etc., you can bet Bush will do anything in his power to oppose it.
88303
How about we just stop driving cars that give less than 20 miles/gallon? That will accomplish just as much as alternative energy and it's probably easier. \n\n\nBy the way, can you guess the 5 countries that we get most of our oil from?\n\nWould you have guessed Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria are 4 of the top 5? Saudi Arabia is the only Middle Eastern country in the 5 (at #3).\n\nThat last comment is exactly why it can't happen. People aren't willing to sacrifice the looks of a car in order to lessen our dependence on oil. Everyone wants someone else to solve their problems instead of doing something about it themselves. Typical.
738995
Not just no, but Hell No!!!   There isn't all  that much oil there to begin with and after all that digging to install pipelines and so on think what that will do to the environment.  And hopefully, within 10 years, now that we have a Democratic Congress which isn't in the pocket of Big Oil, maybe we can find some alternative fuel sources - this is one of the goals of the Democrats.....to encourage and promote alternative sources of fuel.  Allowing the drilling there was just for Bush and Cheney's buddies so they could make more money - like the oil companies don't make enough money.
544463
solar/wind power and electric vehicles. natural, renewable, no pollution, and noone has a monopoly on sunlight and wind.
381900
The US doesn't do anything to help the environment because our politicians are controlled by the oil companies.  Look at Bush, his family made all its money from oil; furthermore, Cheney is connected to Haliburton, a huge energy company.  As long as the oil manufacturers control our political leaders, the US will not do anything to help the environment.  This is very unfortunate because it will cause further damage to our environment, but also it is leading to disagreements between Europe and the US.  The European Union passed the Kyoto Protocol, a program that would require all participating nations to reduce their pollution, last year and the US was one of the only nations not to sign it.  The truly sad thing about that is that the US contributes the most to world pollution.  As of now, the only way our politicians will change their minds about the environment is if the voters band together and become stronger than the oil companies.
117670
A method for making really cheap solarcells from sand and a way to transport the elctricity the generate without any loss. The amount of energy that falls on the Sahara during a year could cover the worlds entire energy needs 50 times over even using standard photocells that convert only a few percent of the light to electricity. With such an abundant and cheap energy source we could replace ALL other energysources as electricity can be converted to any other form of energy and fuel. We could even keep gasoline cars because gasoline could be manufactured from CO2 (from the air) and hydrogen (from water). There would be alot less pollution if I could invent these things.
197817
To answer your primary question, it just needs to be less expensive than fossil fuels...oil in particular.\n\n1.  Very few "direct" renewable sources are available non-stop.  A few would be tidal power, geothermal power and hydroelectric power.  There are many "indirect" sources, such as biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, methane) which are the process of extracting energy from materials.\n\n2. Nothing is really practical (at this point) to compete.  Oil is still too cheap.\n\n3. Storage either in liquid fuel form or conversion to electricity offers the two easiest ways to move large amounts of energy.\n\n4. There's many viable technologies available today, but they are under continuous refinement to make them better, more efficient, less costy, and ultimately, more competitive\n\n5. This one is always fun.  Wind and hydroelectric don't pollute, but one is blamed for killing migratory birds and the other is hated for destroying habitats surrounding rivers.  Both offer the most promise as the next best source of energy compared to fossil fuels.\n\n6. Well, this depends on whether the consumer is in an energy rich or energy poor area.  If you live in an area where there's ample sun, good wind, and/or rivers you can dam up, then you're living close to where you can produce it.  If you can't produce enough energy from the sources immediately available to you, then you will either need to conserve more or import it.\n\n7. Politicians are likely only going to back solutions that prove to be overwhelmingly beneficial to their constituents.  You will get corn belt pols that back ethanol for the obvious positive economic impact that it will have on their areas.   Likewise, wind in areas that it could prove beneficial.\n\nThere is no one magic bullet for every energy need, that needs to be understood.  Some sources will win over others, based on the application and its availability.  But until oil gets more expensive (like over $100 per barrel) then most alternative sources just simply can't economically compete with today's renewable harnessing technology.
310390
It is too bad that they have not been developed to their capacity. It is a concept whose time has come. Nuclear energy should be another alternative to fossil fuels, however too many crazies block that. But we need to cut our independence to oil so that the oil company's do no have such a death grip on us.
169042
The United States uses 30 times the natural resources per person than most of the rest of the world.  These all use up energy which we buy from the mid-east and from Bush's friends.  They control our lives because of this.  Use less and we gain more control.  Consumption feeds business but ultimately leads to loss of real power and control.
537424
It can't, they'll have to pry it out of Bush's cold dead hand if they want that technology and Israel will long since have nuked Iran out of existence. Why don't they use their massive reserves of oil since they have so much? They have alot of sun why don't they use solar energy? Why don't they have their aparently smart scientists invent some energy creation technology out of sand? Why nuclear?
368898
It is renewable since warmth from the sun generates new wind all the time.\n\nThis is the opposite of oil.  Oil takes so long to produce that we use it up much faster than it is created in the earth.  We can actually use up all the oil.
721387
haha bush isn't doing anything about anything that is important.  and honestly do you even think bush knows what global warming is?  he has an intelligence of a two year old
241389
I think you ideas are two idealistic and not realistic considering the progression of our world today.  I think we should be on our thinking caps and try again to harness solar energy.
105865
Solar energy is available in a large quantity, in fact much larger than all other safe energy sources put together. Energy obtained from coal, petroleum, other carbon based products and that obtained from nuclear fusion/fission is not safe for the enviornment.\nSo Solar energy has two major advantages -\n1. Abundant, hence making it cheap.\n2. Environmental friendly.
309391
Because Isreal is a free State. The American government is working on ways to produce energy so that we no longer have to rely on middle eastern oil.
964603
because bush wants their oil
75665
In the short term, it doesn't.\n\nIronically, it takes a lot of fossil fuels to make solar cells.  It takes a lot of diesel and other fossil fuels powered equiment to mine, move, and process the raw germanium, arsinic, and/or silicon to make a solar cell. The it takes a lot of energy to make the silicon or germanium-asenide wafers, and the wafer processing to make the solar cells takes energy.  Much of this energy comes from electricity generates by fossil-fuel generators.  Then there is all the trucking required to move the wafer processing materials and equipment, and these trucks run on diesel.\n\nBy the time you're done, you used up a lot of fossil-fuel derived energy to make your solar cell- so when you start, you've already increased, rather than decreased, our reliance on fossil fuels.\n\nEventually, the hope is that the solar cell will make up for all the energy it took to create it.  Also, over time we should be able to use nuclear, hydroelectric, and other power souces to produce the cells- and many companies are working hard on finding new types of solar cells that take less energy (and therefore less cost) to produce.