Yeah, but it would be ideal to move on past fossil fuels.
Just be wary that we'll never fully drop consumption of petroleum. We actually use that in plastics, paints, and some medicines -- it's not all just transportation. If we didn't have plastics, we'd be screwed as a nation! Thus, for transportation and various other reasons, securing oil has always been a priority. Now, whether or not we ought to OVERSEE THE OIL is debatable. Centcom, or "Central Command," is basically overseeing oil transportation in the middle east. Apparently we actually use our military defend its transportation on a daily basis...at the cost of our soldier's lives and basically our image (nobody likes it when any army occupies your land). I'm currently reading "Blood and Oil" by Michael T. Klare, and surprisingly it's very informative, and not shouting politics at you...I've not finished it, but I almost say I recommend it.
Oil independence is definitely a goal...but we have to produce that oil because alot of it was drilled up in WWII. We have tar sands, the Colorado Rockies, and the ANWR (wildlife reserves..), but I don't think any of that will support our needs for a prolonged amount of time. I'd really like to see some oil independence in the future, and more progress with an alternatively-fueled infrastructure.
IF ONLY WE DIDN:T HAVE A GRIDLOCKED GOVERNMENT AND FATASS POLITICIANS WHO TRY TO AVOID ADDRESSING PROBLEMS TO GET REELECTED
Where does the Hydrogen come from? How do we obtain a steady supply of Hydrogen, and how much energy will that take? There is no magical end-all solution.
I honestly think that if we have some nuclear reactors out in the ocean, they can use the oceanwater to cool the reactor (a process that does not make the water radioactive, don't worry), as well as get the hydrogen necessary for this. It's costly, but if there's an infrastructure available, and if people have the cars for it, it'd pay off in the end. Unfortunately it seems that ONLY the oil companies can afford it though -- the government actually offers to pay as much as 90% of the reactor and people STILL don't buy them.
OOOO I forgot to show you guys this, but I thought it was really cool. Solar panels...on the ocean!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1XyR3YOVZQ http://www.solar-islands.ch/index.phpThey are thermal solar panels...they don't exactly create electricity from sunlight. They heat water up in a series of pipes to generate electricity and do not use expensive photovoltaic cells. I think it's a pretty nifty idea, and we definitely need that for refining hydrogen for fuel cells (the water's RIGHT THERE!!), as well as for desalinization. (Desalinization means to take the salt out of oceanwater to make drinkable freshwater. California relies heavily on the Colorado River. If there's a big drought or anything, we're fucked. So water desalinization for this is really good. Furthermore, we can transport water to Africa and other needy countries, which would be pretty awesome!)
EDIT:
I'm interested in hemp. I saw it mentioned in that economy topic and it seems like an interesting fuel source. We make the plant a national resource sell the weed and use the males for fuel and the rest for clothing, lotion, food etc..
One of my debate topics awhile back was about the Colombian Drug Wars. For shits and giggles I argued that we should legalize all these drugs, esp. for medical treatment. What they'd do is give them the cocaine to shoot and administer it in smaller and smaller doses. To make sure they don't go to other hospitals for more we would implant chips in them that each hospital would scan. what this effectively does is destroy the black market for drugs, lower crime, get people offa drugs, etc. etc. I ONLY SAW BENEFITS FOR MY ARGUMENTS AND MY OPPONENTS HAD NOTHIGN TO SAY
I lost that debate badly.
Gaming World Forums
Alternative Fuels