There is an article in the AP today about the support for hydrogen fuel from President Bush. At first glance this all seems well and good, however the pessimistic side of me says "Of course he wants us to use hydrogen fuel", he is a man that has made a TON of his money off from oil. Right now you're saying, "Chambers, the article says Bush WANTS hydrogen, not petroleum." I've posted an article from Popular Science that talks about the truths behind hydrogen as an alternative fuel source and why the math just doesn't add up.
The Real Story Behind Hydrogen Fuel
This article shows how using hydrogen as a fuel is going to create MORE pollution, not less. Hydrogen has to be extracted and that process is accomplished by; that's right, you guessed it; power plants that run on fossil fuels.
So now I ask, does Bush want us to use Hydrogen because it's better, cleaner or cheaper for consumers, or does he want us to use it because he knows we will actually spend more money on fossil fuels to extract the hydrogen and make him even more money in the process?
Ads
4 comments:
The first line in the Popular Science article says that both Bush and Kerry were optimistic about this technology. Do you question Kerry's motives as well? And please don't tell us that you're blaming Bush for being business minded (though I doubt he even thought this far ahead). You're one of the most business minded people I know.
Besides, Bush is only one of millions that have profitted in our country and others from oil. Everyone from the hometown mechanic to the Mercedez-Benz dealership owner (and his hundreds of employees) have had jobs with benefits that have provided greatly for their families. Virtually every company in the world uses and benefits from the use of oil.
That being said, we shouldn't stop our search for better alternatives. However, the transition to other sources will take a very long time. Maybe hydrogen is not the way to go. If it's not, our wonderful scientists will let us know that, and we'll pursue other avenues.
Jobe - the AP article is what I was refering to regarding Bush and his positoin on Hydrogen fuel(which I didn't post, I'll see if I can find it).
The Popular Science article was to shed light on how it's NOT the silver bullet to fix our energy problem (yes it is a problem, we just don't feel the effects of it yet -- other than the occasional hike in gas prices). Did you read #6 of the Popluar Science article?
Here is an excerpt from that point which tells you HOW committed Bush is into finding a way for us to get off fossil fuels.
"Consider this: President George W. Bush promised to spend $1.2 billion on hydrogen. Yet he allotted $1.5 billion to promote “healthy marriages.” The monthly tab for the war in Iraq is $3.9 billion—a total of $121 billion through last September. In 2004 the Department of Energy spent more on nuclear and fossil fuel research than on hydrogen."
Don't get me wrong I like Bush, but I also like the truth, and I think most people look at the 1.2 billion and think that we're doing a lot, when put into perspective, we're doing very little.
Chambers
Thanks for the clarification. Question: Why does the PS article talk about how they already know it's not the silver bullet, then blame Bush for not spending enough money. If he spends more money it's because he wants to reap the business profits of using more fossil fuels. If he spends too little, he is not interested in the environment and he wants us to stay dependent on fossil fuels. I definitely don't agree with everything Bush does, but I don't see how he can do anything right in this situation.
Also, people love to use dollar signs as a way to measure how much "importance" a White House Administration puts on certain things. Things cost different amounts. Last month I spent $100 on internet and phone service. I spent only $50 on dates with my wife. That must mean that I value my wife 50% less than my internet and phone. I think you know that's not true. Just be careful, lies often come packaged in really true looking boxes.
Bush is in a tough spot, and actually all of us are. We beame very dependant on an energy source that is neither renewable or local. So not only can we not get it from America there may come a time where we can't get it period.
Fossil fuels were a very good source of energy. In fact the energy to cost ratio was VERY attractive, which is why we use it. But we've been spoiled and may have to shell out for a "better" not cheaper, means of power. And wisdom would tell us that to limit our exposure and dependance on others that we should look long and hard and using something that comes from here, as opposed to some foregin country. I am actaully a fan of biodiesel. It's something we could make here at home, and yes it would be more expensive, but how much more expensive is it to be at the mercy of other countries. If you think I'm kidding, what do you think would happen if Saudi and Russia stopped shipping us oil?
As far as money spent as an indicator of importance, I would say it's a pretty good one. As Americans we are abosolutely dependant on it for survival (everything we do depends on it), so where we spend it is a good indicator as to what we value most.
Post a Comment