The major energy issue facing the nation near-term is fuel for transportation. Wind and solar energy can provide electric power and save some coal and natural gas fuel, but at least at present, they cannot provide base power because production from those sources is intermittent, and production does not peak at the same time as demand. Conventional coal fired plants and nuclear plants are needed to provide base power. Natural gas is expensive for electric power generation, and would be better used for transportation. We could be using natural gas to fuel automobiles. This is not new technology, and has been used for a long time. Propane has also been used for transportation fuel for some time. But there is no infrastructure available for re-charging compressed natural gas tanks. Liquid fuel is much more convenient than a gaseous fuel for transportation. Natural gas can be turned into gasoline. The Air Force is working to get half of their jet fuel from natural gas within the next ten years. We could also be converting coal into gasoline. That is also old technology, and was used to fuel the German war machine during WWII. Alcohol is another source of liquid fuel, but converting food to fuel is probably a losing proposition. The world is currently using 85 million barrels of oil a day, and that is close to the production potential. The world's existing oil fields are declining at a rate of 6 or 8% per year, and new fields are not being found to replace the lost capacity. The US government won't even allow oil companies to try to replace the declining capacity. When the Democrats talk about developing alternative fuel sources, it is hard to tell what they mean. They seem to not want to use existing technology such as propane or natural gas or gasoline made from coal or natural gas. I think people are finally realizing that all of the farmland in the USA could not produce enough alcohol to provide the fuel that the USA needs for transportation, and that alcohol alone is not the solution. The Democrats seem to want something magic. They do not want nuclear power, and they want to phase out fossil fuels now. They mention conservation a lot, and seem to think public transportation is one answer. They fail to recognize the time and cost associated with developing a new system, whether public transportation, smaller more efficient cars, alternate fuels, etc.

Electric propulsion is mentioned a lot, but it is not attractive for the entire fleeet of automobiles because huge batteries have to be carried to obtain necessary range, and recharging is slow, making electric propulsion impractical for trips of even moderate length. Electric cars could be used for commuting to work and might be practical for families owning two cars, where the conventional vehicle could be used for longer trips, and the electric vehicle could be used for commuting to work.

Eventually fossil fuels will have to be replaced because the cheap sources will be used up. One long term solution could be fusion power. It could be possible to use fusion power to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen could then be used as a transportation fuel. So far practical fusion power has been elusive. Since I was in college 50 years ago, fusion power has been 40 or 50 years in the future. It could also be possible to use solar energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. These technologies may eventually meet the Democrat's desires for practical no-fossil fuel sources. But they are far in the future, and, while we need to develop these, we need to produce fuel to keep our economy strong and our standard of living high now. So, we need to be drilling oil wells in areas declared off-limits by Democrats (and a few confused Republicans like John McCain) and we need to be developing the infrastucture to convert coal and natural gas into gasoline, diesal and jet fuel.