Why Offshore Drilling Can Bridge Gap to U.S. Energy Future

The Democratic and Republican conventions have arrived amidst a litany of calls for government-sponsored energy projects on the level of Apollo. Despite progress in fields from solar to wind and batteries to biofuels, Popular Mechanics' editor-in-chief says Americans should be careful what we wish for--scientists have more to offer than politicians.

Sadly, our government's track record isn't any better in picking energy sources that it does support. Coal has been a national priority ever since Jimmy Carter put on that cardigan. Yes, coal is plentiful, but it is an environmental headache all the way from strip mine to smokestack. Then there's ethanol. It was less than a year ago that leaders of both parties decided that ethanol made from corn would be a brilliant alternative to foreign oil. Speeches ... Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Fred_gatlin_thumb
3.6
by Fred Gatlin - Aug. 27, 2008

A relative good story about energy needs. This is a complex issue requiring a myriad of decisions, which is very difficult for our government. Making complex decisions are almost impossible for Congress and the President.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
2.0
by John Orvis - Aug. 27, 2008

Overall, a weak argument. The numbers from the Energy Information Administration report tell the story (which isn't mentioned in the article): That the excess production from the Outer Continental Shelf will make barely a dent in world supplies and have an "insignificant" impact on prices. What of the environmental damage wrought by offshore rigs? Nasty chemicals and potential spills. Destroying habitats, destroying fishing economies. None of this is mentioned.

See Full Review » (2 answers)
Betsy_taylor_photo2_thumb
1.6
by Betsy Taylor - Aug. 28, 2008
See Full Review » (12 answers)
N628474479_7734_thumb
3.3
by Joel Kulenkamp - Aug. 27, 2008
See Full Review » (6 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
3.5
by Kaizar Campwala - Aug. 27, 2008
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Normheadshottight_thumb
2.2
by Norman Rogers - Aug. 27, 2008

This story is skimpy for such a complicated subject. Certainly the government's thinking has been clouded by global warming myths. Wind and solar are borderline nonsense. Ethanol is a disaster. The government subsidizes wind, solar and ethanol. Brilliant! Natural gas is good because of the new source - shale gas. Coal is good because it is cheap and can be converted to oil. Both parties are pushing stupid policies, but the democrats are far worse because they actually believe in ... More »

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.8
by Ormond Otvos - Aug. 27, 2008

Bad journalism. Looks like a Pickens plant. Ignores conservation, rapid ramp up of solar, wind. Ignores grid-tied efficiences. Makes ethanol decision look like scientists did it. Scientists advised against grain-based ethanol. Never mentions Energy Return on Investment. Doesn't mention vast advances in nuclear Modularized Pebble Bed Reactors as baseload. Doesn't mention infrastructure tie-ins with employment as alternative to building cars. Doesn't mention mass transit. Just another ... More »

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Silhouette_sml
1.0
by Howard Lutnick - Aug. 29, 2008

Norman Rogers is a lazy man. Smoking cigars on the back lawn all day. Has not worked an honest day in a long time. Flatulence is his middle name. Viagra is the code name for his wild side. Dishonesty is the only reason for him to break a sweat. Where is a rich, hard-working woman, that Norman can meet.... So that he can continue his sloth-like life? And can she buy him a real big house? He has a lot of baggage to move in. Norman is impotent. Norman has many children, and ex-wives, ... More »

See Full Review » (2 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.5

Poor
from 8 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.5
Facts
2.5
Fairness
2.4
Information
2.4
Sourcing
2.2
Style
2.5
Accuracy
1.5
Balance
3.0
Context
2.2
Popularity
2.4
Recommendation
2.2
Credibility
2.6
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
3.4
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!