Lindsey Graham (SC-R) replied to me on the subject of future energy. While I agree with the increased use of nuclear power; I disagreed with this (although I commend his involvement with the independent energy movement)

"I am also pleased that President Bush announced a $1.7 billion Five-year research initiatives on hydrogen fuel in his January 2004 State of the Union Address. As the founder of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucus in the United States Senate, I recognize that hydrogen holds promise as energy for the future. I believe research into its use as commercial fuel is important to the energy security of our nation."

to which I replied

You speak of future but do nothing for the present? While hydrogen may be a part of our distant future, you know as well as I do that the problem with hydrogen is that there is no economically or environmentally friendly way to produce this gas at an amount even close to that of what the President envisions. Energy for unbound hydrogen production would presumably come from fossil fuels (domestic and international) or the Sun; the first of which solves no problem but continues the process, but adding another step.

You speak of security, yet nothing is to be done now? Are we not at war? The capacity and ability to considerably reduce our dependence to oil is currently available and would involve our farmers, engineers, and our scientists all on our own soil. The reduction of oil consumption would help deal with our environmental problems, aid in job production in our country, and end an addiction that we fight wars over and causes the resentment that led to 11 September 2001 (if your president can use 9/11 to push his agenda then so can I!).

The real answer, I believe and for the short term, is bio diesel.