Bush says Saudi oil boost doesn't solve US problem

[Terri]

By AP STAFF
Associated Press
May 19, 2008

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday that the Saudis' modest increase in oil production is ''something but it doesn't solve our problem'' of soaring gas prices.

Taking note of the kingdom's recent decision to raise production by 300,000 barrels a day, the president said the United States must act, too, to ease the gasoline crisis. He mentioned steps such as developing alternate fuels, improving conservation and expanding domestic exploration.

''We've got to do more at home,'' the president said on a lawn of a resort overlooking the Red Sea. He spoke after a private meeting with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

Bush said he told Saudi King Abdullah during their talks this week that the king should be concerned that high energy prices are hurting some of Saudi Arabia's biggest oil customers, including the United States.

More

[SomeDude]

Believe it or not, ethanol was on top of the alternative fuels list, and ethanol has turned out to be a miserable failure. All other alternatives will fail even more miserably then ethanol.

If anyone is interested in an Apollo moon type of project for alternative fuels, don't forget that there isn't a single human being living on the moon today because there is no air to breath, there is no food to eat, and there is no water to drink.

You will all fail with alternatives, because you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. 'You' as in Democrat, Republican, Independant and foreigner.

You.....will.......f ail.

[joe80x86]

@SomeDude

I think you maybe on to something, and just think how much money we could save by shutting down all of our national laboratories, and who needs research and science. We have what we have and that should be good for the next 5,000 years.

Sorry but your an idiot, of course using food product for bio-fuels is turning out to be a bad idea, but there is some merit in other types like ones converted from waste and such. And eventually hydrogen fuel cells should become viable.

As for the moon we will eventaully return to actually live on it and then from there on to Mars. We have most if not all of the technology now but since purchasing a $5 hammer costs NASA a million dollars it will not happen until some major changes are made there.

[elmerck1]

Joe 86, you do not call people on this blog idiots. It you can't use the plain english language and disagree with someone without getting sloppy, I suggest you find another place. You sound like someone posting on the WP blog.They use those kinds of words, loosely. As far as energy goes, if the average american family didn't have three or four cars, there wouldn't be as much demand, and usage runs up the cost.Sure a different propellant would be nice, but there aren't many Einstiens around today, and we will just have to wait until someone gets smart enough, to start using fuel cells, neucular or whatever.

[schillerbjr]

The American people should be "screaming" at
Congress to drill in ANWR, off the coasts of
Florida and California, plus anywhere else we have oil on "our" own soil.

This makes me think that "COMMON SENSE" went the way of the coo-coo bird.


DRILL OUR OWN OIL!!

[SomeDude]

@SomeDude

I think you maybe on to something, and just think how much money we could save by shutting down all of our national laboratories, and who needs research and science. We have what we have and that should be good for the next 5,000 years.

Sorry but your an idiot, of course using food product for bio-fuels is turning out to be a bad idea, but there is some merit in other types like ones converted from waste and such. And eventually hydrogen fuel cells should become viable.

As for the moon we will eventaully return to actually live on it and then from there on to Mars. We have most if not all of the technology now but since purchasing a $5 hammer costs NASA a million dollars it will not happen until some major changes are made there.

First of all, ethanol is being pushed now because it requires the least amount of subsidies. So all those other alternatives will be even more expensive then ethanol.

Second of all, humanity is not going anywhere with the chemical rockets invented by Werner Von Braun in the 1930's. Those same 1930's rocket engines are what the space shuttle 3 main engines use. Those solid rocket boosters are even less efficient but necessary for the initial launch for the weight of the external fuel tank. It is not because of a political cliche (million dollar hammer) that space exploration isn't going nowhere, it is propulsion technology that is the sole limiting factor.