Yesterdays' Industrial Revolution Todays' Energy Revolution

Could anyone give me a good reason to consume all coal resources and burn all accessible oil before we move towards completely renewable energy sources?

No. what a dumb question

I should quote bush... you know what i mean;

Why are we more concerned on whether blue ray is better than HDTV? If Hillary Clinton won the presidential election do you really think there would be any substantial effort to harness solar power? If we do recover from this recession will we be reluctant to pay 4$ a gallon to drive a new powerhouse SUV? How do we fix the average American? Do we need more shows like the Biggest Loser?

In Europe people would be glad to pay 4$ a gallon, the prices are over 1.5 Euro/liter with an Euro at roughly 1.5$ you imagine how much it costs!

Whoa, whoa, calm down there budy. Take a few deep breaths...

The reason that coal and oil continue to be the dominant fuels are numerous:

1. They are very efficient
2. Nothing needs to change in our infrastructure to use them. If we were to run vehicles on a new fuel, think of the massive changes that every service station would need to undergo? Simple question, when a service station replaces its pumps who pays - the company who's name is on the sign or the guy who owns the place? And it would be worse if there were a number of fuels in use at the same time. Your comment about HD-DVD and Blu-ray is apt here - imagine such a "battle" waged over fuel types instead of entertainment devices.
3. The economy of many US states is tied to industries that develop fossil fuels. States like Texas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvannia and West Virgina immediately come to mind.
4. The oil & gas lobby is powerful.
5. If we turned off oil, gas and coal today, what would keep homes in the US from going dark and cold? There is nothing to fill the vaccuum, yet.
6. $4/gallon oil is cheap in comparison to Europe, Japan and and other developed country

I'm not saying any of these are good reasons, but theya re THE reasons.

Also, relax a bit on the hyperbole. Statements like "if we do recover from this recession..." I assume you're a pretty young guy - 30 years or younger?. The recession we're going through is nothing like that of the late 70s. that was really difficult. Recessions come and go just like boom periods.

Also "should quote bush... you know what i mean;" - No I don't know what you mean.

My debate is that I know to change things there needs to be a revolution. If the green party I supported was stronger we would already be driving electric vehicles with US designed fuel cells that charge up every night at a battery bank that collects energy from roof mounted solar cells and private wind mills. I'm just more agitated that everyone knows this is what we need to do, but the largest movement away from octane was to ethanol which in turn only increases mans burden on the environment.

I think I'm more or less predicting that no large change will occur until inflation has soared so high that your average hamburger eating American can't afford to own a gas powered vehicle. We have the option to build something and revolution the way we work. Why not be the first great nation to outlaw the combustion engine?

Try the bicycle revolution, it's easy. People want to keep their big cars and congestion powered by a new fuel source. Good efficient public transport, in a joined-up planned network. What is to stop this? Public opinion; who forms public opinion? The people who sell you oil and cars.

Well said, Tiny Elvis.

I just have one thing to add...

Another reason that that many people haven't converted to "green" alternatives is based on how much they can personally invest. Although we can try to eat organic and buy "environmentally-friendly" products, what it comes down to for a lot of people (at least for me) is the price.

Check out the New York Times article, "In Many Communities, It's Not Easy Going Green". I found it to be pretty interesting, perhaps you will as well.

The cost of the research and the cost of the replacement product. It has not been cost effective to expend resources to research alternative energy sources. If the product would have to be sold to the consumer at higher cost then the already existing fuels no one would by them. With the growing demand for oil and the increased price they are now started to put forth some effort. I am not saying that there has not been no effort at all. There have been many attempts at fuel saving devices over the years. The big oil companies would scarf them up and warehouse them not to be used. They were the only ones in the fuel supply industry. Now with increase in fuel cost to the public and the money that is there other companies from other industries are looking at getting their hands on it. Which is also forcing the oil companies hand to do something too.

If that renewable resource cost you twice as much as what you buy now which would you use. If you said the renewable resource to save the others then you are one of the fortunate few with expendable cash.

True, wind mills and solar power are expensive, but nuclear power is cheaper than burning oil or coal. I don't know the truth of how much it would cost to run an electric vehicle, but I charge my sons ultimate jeep power wheels throughout the summer with little to no cost on the electric bill. There are more fuel cell companies in the US that don't have a product on the market yet than you would believe. The issue is, what is legal to drive on the roads, the combustion engine, and our government is as much at fault as the oil companies, and the people writing consumer reports as to why the majority of our nation drives low efficiency gasoline powered vehicles.