John,
And our GDP is almost identical to the EU which has much lower per capita energy consumption.
Let me clarify. GDP of EU and the US is almost identical, but the population of EU is 50% greater. That means that GDP per person is much lower.
To compare apples to apples, for equal GDP, EU consumed 73.3 (Quadrillion Btu) and the US consumed 97.6. Well, it is higher, nobody claimed otherwise, but it is not not like a the US and EU are in a different league.
Percentage wise, EU actually consumes actually higher percentage of oil (of the total than the US).
What fraction, 7/8? Over 40% of our consumption goes to personal motor vehicles. That's the bulk, that's where the savings can come. By the way I favor nuclear power, always have.
It would take share from coal, gas and oil for power generation. It would make using electricity a more favorable energy source for household use (heating and cooking).
Personal motor vehicles would of course be the last to see alternatives because of the convenience, and built in infrastructure.
Nuclear power can generate fuel for the "hydrogen economy" which includes hydrogen powered cars. Well, we will probably see hydrogen powered buses or locomotives, but it will come to passenger cars as well - once we have the nuclear plants making electricity and hydrogen cheaply.
Don't you ever get tired repeating the same old rhetoric? The energy problem is bipartisan, give it a break.
Well, you cited NY Times. I just reminded you of their credibility on the issue. (none)
No, it's certainly not. There is a big difference between "not tax cuts" and "increasing taxes"?
Just depends on a personal bias, as far as the proper starting point. Not every "jump" is a "reversal of a previous fall".
Joe |
