Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) is actually leading in Congress instead of waiting to be led when it comes to energy. His bill to create 100% energy independence within the next 20 years is one of the boldest initiatives that has been proposed in Congress in decades.
“It’s time to stop talking and actually put a bill forward,” said Forbes in his appearance yesterday on CNN.
Watch the clip:
Here are the innovations Forbes is calling for in his plan:
- Double CAFE standards to 70 MPG while keeping vehicles affordable
- Cut home and business energy usage in half
- Make solar power work at the same cost as coal
- Make the production of biofuels cost-competitive with gasoline
- Safely and cheaply store carbon emissions from coal-powered plants
- Safely store or neutralize nuclear waste
- Produce usable electricity from a nuclear fusion reaction
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. 
Loading ...
God bless Randy. I worked for him when he was Chairman of RPV in the late 1990s.
Though he touched on it, I do wish he had highlighted a little bit more the benefit of nuclear energy.
John McCain has called for 45 new nuke plants. Seems like a good idea to me, and it’s also gold politically.
Obama can’t be for it, because his nutty base won’t stand for it. Most normal Americans think nuclear power is a good thing. It’s only the whacko left who thinks it’s armageddon.
Remember, more people have died in Ted Kennedy’s car than have been killed in nuclear accidents in America.
With all due respect, I feel that there is a bit of a “pie in the sky” aspect to this. We have had “renewable energy” projects going for over 30 years with very little appreciable progress (and even some negative trade-offs). The biggest problem seems to be government interference in the markets.
Can’t a lot of the so-called progress we need on energy be taken care of with tax incentives rather than funding programs that try to pick winners? I hate to say this, but this is more of an election year ploy that may not give us more than a zero-sum gain.
Actually thats wrong I’m afraid. I know the Delmont was a big car, but it would have been a little cramped.
I stand corrected. I should have said “since” someone died in Ted Kennedy’s car.
I don’t, though, think it’s fair to view the safety of nuclear energy based on the one-and-only fatal accident in the United States 47 years ago. I supsect that technology has advanced a bit since then.
I agree. Personally i think we should explore nuclear power options. I was just correcting a mistaken fact in your post, not arguing the validity of your point. Most folks have never even heard of SL-1, which is a shame as its actully a fascinating bit of history IMHO, and we learned a lot from it.
I’ll admit that the concept of “fusion” in the next twenty years is a pretty steep mountain to climb that may actually be physically impossible. We are, after all, talking about harnessing the power of the sun here. But the great thing about this initiative is its “pie in the sky” approach. That’s what visionaries do.
Right. And one day man will walk on the Moon. Sure, J.R.
Sorry, but there is no mention of nuclear fission, the only nuclear power that actually works.
Then again, energy “independence” is ridiculously overrated. We import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia.
I said, “may”, Chase. I wasn’t being disparaging. I hope someone can make cold fusion work, and maybe with the right incentives, it will.
As for energy independence as a concept, DJ, can you hardly blame anyone for trying?
Although, the markets in India and China will STILL have a lot to say about the prices of all goods and services…especially given they will be primary consumers of fossil fuels, should we change our usage. Ergo, if the demand for oil remains high, the price of oil will stay high, and our CPI still goes up.
Seriously, if something is in demand, let’s produce it! What can be more American that that?
J.R. –
I was agreeing with you, but did it in a clumsy, sarcastic manner. Sorry about that.
It’s one thing to allow greater production of energy or to promote incentives for more efficient energy use. It is quite another to create mandates that end up being quite counterproductive. In the case of this proposal by Forbes et al. I am not sure what will happen. Needless to say, I am not optimistic.
What Forbes proposes is nothing more than giving away taxpayer funed prize money for coming up with ideas. It’s an earmark.
The New Manhattan Project is a good in road into central planning akin to the ethanol stupidity. Worse, we’re using an analogy of war—something government is good at—to describe a spur to the private sector. If there is demand, the private sector will not only direct but produce the solutions.
By the way, the analogy of the Manhattan Project is sorely misplaced. Government is good at making war but it is not good at planning the needs of the economy.
Rep. Forbes instincts are great but his plan flawed and horribly named. More mountaintop removal for coal extraction, and more poisoning of the earth with nuclear waste is not the answer.
Solar, in any form…wind, tides, collectors….surely the right direction. In Europe cars already get seventy miles to the gallon. Done. Of all the experts he mentions for his team, architects are left out. Too bad, because they are the Inventors who know how to add to the mix of technology, the sociology of conservation and sustainable land and resource utilization: The ONLY road to relief from Oil Addiction.
I have been working on a project of concept electric vehicles ranging from highway-legal scooters to large trucks and buses for the last 13 years. The project had the input of many engineers and was considered technically feasible by a panel of DOE’s FreedomCAR and Advanced Vehicles Technologies back in 2002. These concepts were designed to exchange their battery packs in seconds at recharging stations making them as independent as conventional vehicles. There are many other novel features on them as well as novel modular transit ideas, vehicle to grid compatibilities, etc., etc. I hope this message gets to Mr. Fofbes’ desk, as I believe it could help to fulfill most the goals of the New Manhattan Project.
Roberto DePaschoal
info@ev-motion.com