PDA

View Full Version : Environment Rep Young on drilling


HonestChieffan
07-28-2008, 04:28 PM
House Bill 6107 - Everyone should see this
Congressman Don Young, Rep. Alaska talking about oil and ANWR on house floor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlfmvwxxgHM

banyon
07-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Embed is your friend.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MlfmvwxxgHM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MlfmvwxxgHM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 05:31 PM
:clap:

InChiefsHell
07-28-2008, 05:40 PM
Double :clap:

...and we need a "Hell Yeah" smiley too...:D

banyon
07-28-2008, 05:54 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

***SPRAYER
07-28-2008, 05:56 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

Party pooper!

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 06:58 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

But I can't help but wonder where we would be if we had started this years ago. I agree that in the long term this is not the answer but in the meantime doing nothing will solve exactly that, nothing.

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 07:00 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

Do you have any thoughts or knowledge about abiotic oil theories? This is totally new to me but I find it very intriguing. :hmmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

banyon
07-28-2008, 07:15 PM
But I can't help but wonder where we would be if we had started this years ago. I agree that in the long term this is not the answer but in the meantime doing nothing will solve exactly that, nothing.

I'm certainly not for dong nothing, but had we started drilling in ANWAR as this guy wants, there's no projection greater than that we could even derive 1/20 of our current consumption level from there. So being generous, take 1/40th (assuming at least 50% cost and profit for the extra production) off of your gas tab. Better? Not much.

banyon
07-28-2008, 07:17 PM
Do you have any thoughts or knowledge about abiotic oil theories? This is totally new to me but I find it very intriguing. :hmmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

That seems interesting scientifically, but when there are viable renewable sources of energy, I don't know why we shouldn't be pursuing them. Even abiogenic petro (if it exists) would be nonrenewable, unless we gained control of the philosopher's stone.

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 07:28 PM
I'm certainly not for dong nothing, but had we started drilling in ANWAR as this guy wants, there's no projection greater than that we could even derive 1/20 of our current consumption level from there. So being generous, take 1/40th (assuming at least 50% cost and profit for the extra production) off of your gas tab. Better? Not much.

Better taking 1/40 off the tab then for it to be another 400% increase in the next 10 years. It is not about today it is about pulling out all the stops in whatever manner so there is a future where I do not have to ride a horse to work.

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 07:30 PM
That seems interesting scientifically, but when there are viable renewable sources of energy, I don't know why we shouldn't be pursuing them. Even abiogenic petro (if it exists) would be nonrenewable, unless we gained control of the philosopher's stone.

I must be missing something here. I was under the impression that this is still rising from the subsurface and that there have been documented accounts of reservoirs of crude refilling. Sounds renewable to me.

Of course there are still issues with regards to the environment and so forth so this would not be a cure all by any means. But is might slow the speculators down and end the nonsense about peak oil. Long term we need to be very serious about solar, wind, nuclear, etc for sure but that will not help tomorrow or even Wednesday.

banyon
07-28-2008, 07:31 PM
Better taking 1/40 off the tab then it to be another 400% increase in the next 10 years. It is not about today it ia about pulling out all the stops in whatever manner so there is a future where I do not have to ride a horse to work.

It's not so much the discount that you should focus on, but instead the unquestioned rapid increase in demand from China and India that will far outstrip our ability to supply oil. That alone is enough for me to know that oil at this point is a fool's errand.

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 07:33 PM
It's not so much the discount that you should focus on, but instead the unquestioned rapid increase in demand from China and India that will far outstrip our ability to supply oil. That alone is enough for me to know that oil at this point is a fool's errand.

I would love to see us end all "fossil" fuels but that is not practical at the moment. We need to have something to use as a transitional element for now. What good does it do to leave it in the ground for future generations that hopefully will have little to no need for it?

banyon
07-28-2008, 07:36 PM
I would love to see us end all "fossil" fuels but that is not practical at the moment. We need to have something to use as a transitional element for now. What good does it do to leave it in the ground for future generations that hopefully will have little to no need for it?

Competitively against other nations as a supplier of the fuel of the future? It does us a world of good. We scould make a sh** ton of money. Not to mention that saving it as a military resource (as the strategic reserve was designed) is advantageous as well if we should run short of other fuels.

banyon
07-28-2008, 07:37 PM
I must be missing something here. I was under the impression that this is still rising from the subsurface and that there have been documented accounts of reservoirs of crude refilling. Sounds renewable to me.

Of course there are still issues with regards to the environment and so forth so this would not be a cure all by any means. But is might slow the speculators down and end the nonsense about peak oil. Long term we need to be very serious about solar, wind, nuclear, etc for sure but that will not help tomorrow or even Wednesday.

By the account you suggested, this is a very minimally held theory, with little backing. I think we need to make our energy plans around facts right now.

whoman69
07-28-2008, 07:41 PM
Canada has plenty of oil and they pay even higher prices for gas than we do. The answer is not on the supply side of oil its in the demand for non-renewable fuel sources. Coal and nuclear may pose a temporary partial solution for our electrical needs which would allow us more leeway with transportation needs, but at what cost to our environment. I don't think anyone has shown me truly clean coal, perhaps cleaner coal. The first time we have a repeat of Three Mile Island the whole country will go into an energy panic.
I am convinced the only way we stop our slavery to foreign oil is to create other forms of energy. Republicans talk of the wasted time since Clinton vetoed ANWR, as if drill, drill, drill is the only answer. Its not like the lack of competition in the oil industry is going to have them searching any harder for the oil we are not even sure is there, than they have in areas which are currently open to exploration. Its to their benefit to have the price of oil high. Republicans conveniently forget that they gutted the only true energy policy we have had in the last 35 years when the price dropped off during the Reagan administration. We blew our chance to be even further along in the development of solar, wind and other renewable resources.
We have heard throngs talk against Ethanol claiming that it uses more energy than it creates while including the energy of the sun to grow the plants in their calculations. It costs energy to bring oil out of the ground too. They talk about how hard it is to transport and then throw a tax on ethanol imported from Brazil. We can import it from Brazil and yet its hard to transport?! They decry the current price of corn while forgetting that the price of gas has pushed the price of all grains upwards, not just those used to make ethanol. They also conveniently forget all the wasted time that we could have been using to figure out a way to use the whole plant to make ethanol with and the ability to use other plants to make ethanol. They want to cry about its high price to mix with gasoline for 10% gasahol when the current price of E85 is under $3.00/gallon.
They also conveniently forget that they got rid of mandates to demand higher fuel economy from cars on the notion that it economically hurts the auto industry because of the cost of re-engineering. They certainly had enough money to re-engineer all the freaking full sized pickups on the road whose only load they have to carry is the big fat asses of their owners driving to work.

Hydrae
07-28-2008, 07:43 PM
By the account you suggested, this is a very minimally held theory, with little backing. I think we need to make our energy plans around facts right now.

I would agree with that. Even if we found an inexhaustible supply of oil we need to get away from it due to the side effects of burning hydrocarbons. I just find it an interesting theory that I have just been hearing for the first time this month. I am hopeful of finding someone around here who may be knowledgable about the topic and who can teach me more of why or why not it is a solid theory.

tiptap
07-28-2008, 08:34 PM
Do you have any thoughts or knowledge about abiotic oil theories? This is totally new to me but I find it very intriguing. :hmmm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

They drilled in Sweden, they drilled in Russia and still no evidence of abiotic oil production. And just to add to this, if oil was being produced abiotically, then existing formations, those we already tapped should be filling up again. After all they represent an area where oil had collected.

Think about it. Is oil returning to old oil fields?

Chief Faithful
07-28-2008, 08:37 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

To the Senator's point its not just an issue of not drilling it is an issue that there is no energy policy coming from Congress at all.

***SPRAYER
07-28-2008, 08:52 PM
To the Senator's point its not just an issue of not drilling it is an issue that there is no energy policy coming from Congress at all.


Not to be overly critical of congress but...

If I had to venture a guess, we could probably muster up about 500 people on this forum who could come up with an energy policy.

Guru
07-28-2008, 11:31 PM
Okay, I watched it. I'm not sure what everyone's clapping about. This guy thinks we can drill our way out of this problem, but even if we opened up ANWAR and offshore drilling and were able to get oil tommorrow, the estimated reserves (which is a generous estimate) is enough to last us for about ten to fourteen years. Then we're right back to square one. And there's the C02, the runoff, the damage to beaches, etc.

Nuclear will work. Clean Coal (if it existed) would work, it's at least viable. Wind, hydro, solar and geothermal will work and have the best upside.

Efficiency standards and a different power source for autos and trucks should be priority.

This guy just offers more of the same. Not to mention that if Indian and Chinese demand outsrips U.S. increased supply (which all projections show) and American petroleum countries are allowed to sell to those foreign customers (which you know they'll want to), then there may be no tangible benefit to U.S. consumers.

This guy is either doing the bidding of the oil companies unwittingly or he's in their pocket.

Edit that* This guy is under investigation for taking bribes from oil companies.

I'm for all the alternatives. Doesn't seem like Washington really wants to solve anything though.

HonestChieffan
07-29-2008, 06:34 AM
People jump to the conclusion and swallow the line "We cant drill our way out of the problem" because its short, sweet, and sounds smart as heck. But they fail to take any time to define "the problem" and offer little or no strategic thought to work our way out of "the problem".

The problem is not drilling today to get cheap gas at the pump in the next year or two. Sure that would be nice but its unrealistic. The problem drilling does address very directly is the impact of the balance of export and import and the effect on the dollar, balance of trade, and reduced dependence on others.

The price at the pump regardless of drilling is a function of demand and supply. By drilling and assuming the drillers are successful, the supply side is automatically recalculated. More drilling successfully and extracting the crude is adding to supply. That wont in and of itself reduce price becuse price will be a function of demand. Demand expectations over the near term is that demand globbaly will grow. So adding to supply in anticipation of that reduces the upward price pressure. More importantly is the effect of selling that oil to US customers as well as foreign customers and creating value in our economy, not exporting value to other economies.

Not drilling will make our situation worse. By sitting idle and debating the issue, we will be at the mercy of the demand side while we watch supply not change and as a result prices will increase and we will have a worse trade imbalance.

The desire for technology to impact the price and supply of energy is universal. We all want to see it. But the fact remains, the cars currently on the road in the US could easily all be here, running, and using the exact same amount of fuel for 10 or more years. New technology will have zero impact on the amount of fuel your car you drive today uses. As more efficient cars are available they will work into the market but the car you trade will just be driven by someone else for a time period. So the idea that we can appreciably reduce gas use with hybrid cars is a very slow and long term change. That said, we should do everything possible to develop higher efficency. The current standards if I recall, allow the manufacturers something like 10 years to implement and meet the new standards. 10 years is a long time.

The development of every eccoonomically effective source of clean energy should be the goal. Not fighting over one vs another, not saying no to every idea. This is self destructive behavior.

For every person who supports wind power, there is a group who say no because birds may fly into a blade, another group who says no because they are against the visual polution, and on and on. So...do we not do wind? Or do we accept the negatives in balance with the benefits? Wind wont fix "the problem" but it can contribute to the positive.

For every pro nuclear proposal, there comes forth the anti crowd with issues like what about the waste...we fall in line forgetting the rest of the world had developed extremely low waste nuclear while we have done squat for years. But the waste stream fears go unchallenged and we build...zero.

For every low emmision coal fired plant, we have the anti coal folks...global warmers, the people who fear ugly smoke stacks uncontrolled, visions of pre WW2 Warsaw Poland in their minds, grey grime everywhere. In the meantime we have the technology to build safe clean high output coal fired plants...but do we build them? Not in my back yard...right Gov Sebelius?

Conservation measures get lots of babble. Do we offer tax incentives for retrofitting and improving efficiency of homes? Been a while since we had real promotion and support for conservation. And 55mph works. But would we mandate 55 mph? The masses will revolt!

Energy policy cannot be developed if every idea and proposal is shot down by the individual anti crowds who line up to oppose thier favorate target for non development.

An Energy policy that develops every single new and old source of energy, that rewards innovation, and that is based on solid economics and science has to be implememnted. Drilling wont give you $1.50 gasoline next week, but its one of the critical pieces that gets us to the long term outcome of a energy policy and energy industry that moves from 1960 to 2010.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 07:38 AM
I'm certainly not for dong nothing, but had we started drilling in ANWAR as this guy wants, there's no projection greater than that we could even derive 1/20 of our current consumption level from there. So being generous, take 1/40th (assuming at least 50% cost and profit for the extra production) off of your gas tab. Better? Not much.

You can say that about any energy source and dismiss it as "not much" in terms of impact on the big picture. If you want to maximize the impact on that big picture, we ought to be pursuing all of economically feasible options.

InChiefsHell
07-29-2008, 08:47 AM
Thing is, between ANWR, the Continental Shelf, and the shale deposits, we have enough oil to last us a long ass time, of course that depends on who you ask. I'm inclined to believe the oil is there. Just by threatening to drill, oil has gone down pretty drastically. Since oil prices are based on futures, seems if you show you have a real will power and ability to affect the supply of oil to put more of it out there, then yeah, that will make a difference right now...of course, we need to follow through and actually do the drilling and the refining.

Here's my question...people talk about how we can have hydrogen or electric cars inside of 10 years, and that might be possible. But do you think that all of the sudden, we will yank everyone's car, truck, semi, boat, ship, airplane away from them and they will all uniformly go with the new technology? Or will you wise up and realize that oil is here for quite a few more decades at least and we need to get our own while developing these other technologies?

Iowanian
07-29-2008, 11:21 AM
I thinkthis is worth looking at for the photos and maps. I could care less one way or another about the political text at the end.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/29/the-truth-about-anwr/


As for not helping.......when the US TALKS about drilling, oil prices dive. When the US turns a spade of soil in search of new domestic supply, it'll dive a lot more.....even if its for 10 years, making fuel more affordable for us now....and helping our economy.

I'm all for getting gas back down to....I can't believe I'm saying this....the $2 range.

HC_Chief
07-29-2008, 11:27 AM
Wasn't ANWR set aside by the Carter administration specifically for oil exploration?

InChiefsHell
07-29-2008, 12:02 PM
I thinkthis is worth looking at for the photos and maps. I could care less one way or another about the political text at the end.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/29/the-truth-about-anwr/


As for not helping.......when the US TALKS about drilling, oil prices dive. When the US turns a spade of soil in search of new domestic supply, it'll dive a lot more.....even if its for 10 years, making fuel more affordable for us now....and helping our economy.

I'm all for getting gas back down to....I can't believe I'm saying this....the $2 range.

INdeed. I can't remember who, some congressman who has been trying to get the shale thing going for a few years, has stated that with proper refining capacity there is no damn reason why we shouldn't be paying 1.25 at the pump...

...I don't care if he's half right, getting back to 2.00 would be pretty damn do-able...

HC_Chief
07-29-2008, 12:03 PM
INdeed. I can't remember who, some congressman who has been trying to get the shale thing going for a few years, has stated that with proper refining capacity there is no damn reason why we shouldn't be paying 1.25 at the pump...

...I don't care if he's half right, getting back to 2.00 would be pretty damn do-able...

US shale supposedly holds as much as the entire ME

HonestChieffan
07-29-2008, 12:04 PM
Not according to Pelosi and Harry Reid.

RaiderH8r
07-29-2008, 02:58 PM
Holy Christ.

When considering energy it should be done from a global perspective, particularly when it concerns crude oil. Right now, the US is NOT putting its "fair share", as it were, into the global market. The current market situation relating to gasoline prices is precisely what environmentalists have been aching for. They have chosen to hug trees in lieu of providing the very driver of our nation's economy that has afforded them the luxury to be the pretend friends to the environment that they are. There is a reason there is no environmental movement in developing countries: when you worry more about starvation, malaria, yellow fever, potable water, keeping a mud hut in tact during bad weather, etc. hugging a tree makes damn little sense. The OECD countries have vastly improved their efficiencies in relation to GDP. According to IEA OECD countries have gone from 1.6 barrels per day per $1M GDP in 1974 to .6 BPD per $1M GDP in 2007, all the while growing their economies. Pushing for demand destruction through exhorbinant prices by restricting supply growth is ludicrous and inhumane. It puts the greatest burden for national adherence to this policy on those least able to afford it. The solution then becomes higher taxes to redistribute wealth to the lower classes so they can afford the basic necessities afforded by energy. All this instead of addressing the supply side issues of energy policy.

The nation and the world shows continued energy demand increases well beyond 2030, with crude oil, natural gas, and coal providing over 80% of it through 2030. Recognizing this fact, as well as the current situation, requires proper thinking individuals to take the steps necessary to address the supply side of this equation going forward at least 20 years. While that process is under way we utilize the increased revenue from new areas of access for development (royalties/lease payments/bid payments/taxes etc) to spur greater R&D in areas of alternative energy with a focus on region specific solutions while modernizing the energy grid to move wattage around more efficiently. Additionally we should set a goal of building 25 new 1 GW nuclear power plants in the next 25 years; constantly assessing national demand to determine future buildouts beyond.

Talk of electric cars being the solution is balderdash. They are not. The assertion that electric cars somehow rid us of our need for fossil fuels is absolute rubbish. Energy is an end product, not the resource itself. Energy comes from somewhere. Where cars are concerned, and McCain gets all the credit on this one, innovatation in battery techology is the way to go. We (humans) do a piss poor job of storing electricity. Tech leaps in storage will go much farther in dealing with energy issues in the future than just about any supply side solution anyone has to offer.

This is my start, I have more but this should kick things off.

banyon
07-29-2008, 06:23 PM
You can say that about any energy source and dismiss it as "not much" in terms of impact on the big picture. If you want to maximize the impact on that big picture, we ought to be pursuing all of economically feasible options.

The problem is that this solution focuses our attention on efforts where we will have little control over our energy future. It will not secure us energy independence and I haven't seen anyone offer anything in way of response to my post about how China and India's growth will outstrip any ability we have to increase production even if we save 1/20th of the price now, we'd essentially be putting a band aid on a severed limb. I also haven't seen any proposal (from the right) that these companies will not be able to offer this oil on the open market to China and India. The only people who really benefit from this are the oil companies and their shareholders.

I think we should concentrate our efforts in ways that will be likely to decrease, rather than increase our dependence on foreign oil. If we don't have enough oil to sustain consumption here, it's time to look into other alternatives.

banyon
07-29-2008, 06:26 PM
I thinkthis is worth looking at for the photos and maps. I could care less one way or another about the political text at the end.

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/29/the-truth-about-anwr/


As for not helping.......when the US TALKS about drilling, oil prices dive. When the US turns a spade of soil in search of new domestic supply, it'll dive a lot more.....even if its for 10 years, making fuel more affordable for us now....and helping our economy.

I'm all for getting gas back down to....I can't believe I'm saying this....the $2 range.


Sounds like you think that oil speculators have a significant impact on the price of oil. It would've been great if Republicans had supported the legislation to require collateral on energy trading instead of filibustering it.

Amnorix
07-29-2008, 07:25 PM
Nice speech, but ultimately domestic production doesn't solve anything unless we're Saudi Arabia, and we're not. Not even 1/10th that.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 06:14 AM
Nice speech, but ultimately domestic production doesn't solve anything unless we're Saudi Arabia, and we're not. Not even 1/10th that.

Are you a "let's put all our eggs in a single basket" kind of guy? If so, what basket?

I suspect you aren't, so in that case I'd ask why domestic production (of oil) shouldn't be considered a component of the solution to our future energy needs?