If you thought the pain in your pocketbook of skyrocketing oil prices would be an impetus for development of technology to break our dependence on oil would it be worth it for the temporary sacrifice?

No I don't think so because I don't think it would be temporary for the following reasons:
1. Americans are resistant to change. The oil prices would have to go ALOT higher before you would see any significant change.
2. If the oil companies are making money off of the oil and raising prices would help them make that money, why would they develope new technology?
3. Any technology developed would first be very expensive, and your average working class American would have to foot the bill.

While I believe that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil, I don't believe rising prices will do it.

The prices shouldn't hvae to skyrocket to allow for technology to go forward. I am not getting it. It should be the oil companies who are going forward with this technology already. They already have the infrastructure in place to make this work, and they would be able to keep their monopoly on energy. Eventually someone is going to come up with viable alternative energy sources and I can't understand why the oil companies would not want to be the first ones to do this.

The prices could even stay about the same as oil prices and still be effective. If done in tandem with auto manufacturers these evergy sources could also bring back a resurgence of the auto industry in the US.

1) It would be good for the economy for the US to be the first to introduce the technology on a mass scale as our industries would enter the market first.
2) It would be good for our national security in that it would make us less reliant on foreign nations for our energy needs.
3) It would be good for our national security as it would take funding away from nations who are not overly fond of the US in the first place - despite some being supposed allies.
4) Things like ethanol production (just one example) would be very good for the American farmer. As it is now, we are paying some farmers to not produce to keep the agricultural prices artificially high so they can make ends meet. I realize that Brazil and maybe a couple of other countries are already doing this, but they can't do it on the scale that the American oil companies could do it.
5) It gives us another potential export item that could help offset trade imbalances, which is good for the American economy as a whole.

I am sure there are other potential advantages that I am missing, and maybe some don't see the above as some potential advantages.

I wold like to see any tax incentives that the oil companies get tied to R&D into alternative energy sources. You don't attempt to develop these, you don't get the same rate as those who do.

Yes I agree with your points but ordinary citizens are often the impetus when they make demands.

Possibly I am falling for a marketing PR scheme but a few articles put out by BP look as though they are funding and pushing for this technology. I have not really researched this. Academia alone canot do it. We need the big money and progressive energy companies to make this happen.

It is not just about funding other countries. I think in the event of a major national security crisis our dependency on oil makes us vulnerable.

I am not really saying I absolutely think a sharp increase in price is necessary but pressure from ordinary people really does make a difference.

I am just not sure how the ordinary person can affect change in this instance. Oil is basically an inelastic demand, and we cannot as a population say we are not going to buy gas. Although I am generally in favor of as little government interference in business as possible, this may be an exception because to me it is a matter of national security. I think government has to be pro-active in convincing the oil companies to go this route. If they just convinced one to do it then the others would have to go along or be forced out of the market.

Do you think if gasoline went to $7 dollars a gallon and airfare tripled it would not have an effect? If the highways were empty and just a few seats purchased on planes corporate america would put the squeeze on our government. We would all be miserable for a bit but suddenly advancement in technology would occur!

Yes you are correct our current dependence is a threat to national security. Even a terrorist attack on Saudi oil could trigger this coupled with a few other events.

let the market dictate the price. And if your worried about forighn oil open up alaska and the gulf and all of our shores for drilling

Sure the price could get high enough to impact the consumers. However, the oil companies could keep the price at 4.00 and still make just as much if not more money. Maybe even at 7.00 they would still make money, as gas will still have to be purchased. Inflation would be out of control though, so I am not sure what the 7.00 would be worth.

I still think it is the government which has to influence the oil companies. All it would take is to tie tax incentives to the R&D. It is essentially the same thing as the government helping to fund the R&D. The oil companies are really the only ones who could deliver the alternative energy sources to the US without outrageous prices. Again, the US auto makers and energy companies would be way ahead of the rest of the world adn it could only help our economy.

Dom1....Oil companies do not wish to take value away from their existing "cash cow". They would and could dominate the "new energy technology market" only when it becomes necessary and no sooner IMO.

Consuming energy is somehow tied to our world economic domination. When our ability to get the energy we need is hurt you will see a move to the alternate energy sources. Ofcourse all efforts to keep our energy consumption in the realm of "fossil" fuels will be the most pressed by the existing industries. Coal owners will pay HUGE bucks to burn coal and covert it to gasoline. Oil people will pay HUGE bucks to drill in every location possible all while doing the minimum and paying lip service to pollution control.

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. Ahhhh. Smell that fresh air.

I agree with everything you said. That is why I think the government needs to push the companies into that direction. I feel it would help many of our industries, such as the auto industry, gain competitive advantages and would be the right thing to do for a number of reasons - as listed above.

If the government can tie tax incentives into this they may be able to convince the energy companies that if they don't jump on board they will be left behind. Either by a domestic company or a foreign company.