More debate, please

More than anyone, USA need change their energetic matrix and costs are not a good parameter to stop putting the wheels of innovation rolling.
As innovation I’m not talking about new technologies or sci-fi stuff, but just the tested and well-known concepts in a intelligent new way.
Think about the transport; that is one of major oil demanding industry in that country. Just adopting the hybrid technology in all their cars, USA would cut their oil needs in a third part. And hybrids are a totally proved technology.
And why not increase the rates of biofuel use? Is not energetically stupid when farmers that grow oil-rich crops use Arabic prospect fuels instead backyard made biodiesel? Moving something a half-world to move a equivalent energy doesn’t seem sensate in my point of view and if a govern worried in make itself free of oil-rich countries humours don’t see it, needs take a pill of reasonability.
Other way would helps is the electranet proposed by Al Gore. Linking all majors regions by transmission lines and using many forms of generation with small decentralized power plants combined with the already in use big energetic facilities.
Imagine if all the roofs around the Midlands were covered with photovoltaic panels (there are already some 40% efficient in the solar light conversion). Maybe it couldn’t provide all the electricity needed, but could afford a big part. The same for the existent technologies to catch energy from sea waves, tide, wind and geothermal.
A matrix with just one of these compounds could not guarantee the country needs but if all of them were exploited at same time, USA will make itself a liquid exporter of energy.
Some will say all these ways to generate are more expensive than the oil-coal burning plants and it could hurt the typical American family’s budget. I would ask: How much is this budget wounded for the military expends necessary to guarantee the Middle East oil’s supply? Or the lives lost in these wars? Or environmental messing provided for the gases wasted in oil burned (greenhouse ones or not)?
The oil advocates’ use say there is not a substitute for it. This is partially true.
There is not one substitute that can replace oil in all its uses, but there are many that can do it in many kinds of use.
Limiting the debate just in costs is good just for the big oil companies and the oil-rich countries that control the international prices. Other parameters could be environmental, health and wages distribution.
A working-well capitalism don’t like oligopolies and dislike it more when it is in a so central issue.