Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Why Democrats Love the Pickens Plan
greenopolis.com — When anyone invests $300 million dollars into promoting alternative energy sources, the Democrats usually take notice. When that person is an oil tycoon, brother of a "Bush Pioneer", and someone who was a major contributor to the 2004 Swift Boat ads, that person gets an invitation from Nancy Pelosi to speak before the House Democratic Caucus.
oboy- 818 diggs
- digg it
- seks03, on 07/19/2008, -8/+46his plans sounds really good but I just have this bad feeling there's something under handed going on.... I know he owns the biggest Natural gas company but making profit is not a problem... I don't know, Something just doesn't feel right about this.
- MarkLaymon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19I have been following many of the wind power companies for a while now. The only thing I can see going on with them is the fact that they know they can make a pile of money if they get in now before the land rush has become full swing
- oboy, on 07/20/2008, -2/+32Let's face it, the guy's an oilman. He can make money in way he wants. This plan wouldn't seem so bad coming from Bill Gates or another wealthy person outside of the field, but this feels like a tobacco company backing a plan to make people quit smoking. It seems like something is fishy until you realize they own a ton of stocks in "The Patch" or something else.
Pickens has made his money. He is known for eccentric spending, including donating over $100 million to his alma mater to help them put in better sports facilities. Any other oilman and I would question it. Pickens - he means what he says and he says what he means.- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6He's not just eccentric, throwing away this money. If he can get buy-in, he'll make a whole nothing ***** of cash. He's getting in on the ground floor.
- TheNeptune, on 07/20/2008, -1/+8He's actually given around $300 million to his alma mater for sports and around $150 million for academics.
- iwillforgetthis, on 07/20/2008, -0/+391) Pickens subscribes to the Peak Oil theory and has for many years. So he believes we need to get off oil and natural gas as a country as soon as possible.
2) He'll make a poop load of money off this.- countthevotes, on 07/20/2008, -6/+3Baloney! I had to log in just to comment on this guy.
Pickens was predicting oil would go down to $40/bbl on CNBC about 6 months ago. He admitted he was wrong and now he is predicting $250/bbl. Obviously he has no idea and doesn't ascribe to "Peak Oil".
What he wants is extensions and additions to the Federal Tax breaks! I other words he wants a handout from the taxpayer to fund his boondoggle. - iwillforgetthis, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Type Pickens and Peak Oil into Google. He has ascribed to Peak Oil for years.
My comment is not "Baloney!".
And I did say he was in this for the money. - winnestow, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1the environmentalists are such hypocrites - stop the whole industry of foresty for the spotted owl, yet thousands of raptors die from the turbine blades of windmills - don't hear a word from them.
- countthevotes, on 07/20/2008, -6/+3Baloney! I had to log in just to comment on this guy.
- DifferentAngle, on 07/20/2008, -4/+2If he can get natural gas used in vehicles in the united states then he can start selling his natural gas at gasoline prices, which are much higher. The end result will be that the other consumers of natural gas will have to pay a much higher price, so electricity and home heating costs will go up for consumers while he gets really rich.
This is similar to how food prices have gone up due to bio-fuels. - fuzzynyanko, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5If I'm paying less to get to work because of it, then let him profit. I doubt natural gas will replace gasoline if gasoline is cheaper. I just hope the Dems don't cave into a slick oil man like the Republicans have.
- macweirdo42, on 07/20/2008, -2/+14Honestly, the fact that he's a Texas oil man actually reassures me. The fact is, he is in it strictly for the money. One might argue that he's just trying to play off of global warming hype or whatever, but let's face it - no one's giving up their oil dependency over global warming fears. Being an oil man, he understands that better than anyone, and yet despite that, he sees the need to diversify and invest in alternative energy. If anything, it suggests to me that we're perhaps over-confident in our oil dependency. Nothing in the world is as reliable as human greed, and if greed points us in the direction of alternative energy, I think it's something we should really pay attention to.
- dagamer34, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8Greed can still be good for him, bad for us. Don't think of this as simple as being a win/win for everyone.
- filmbandit, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1if the price i'm paying for energy stops escalating that is a win for me as well.
did any of you guys actually think big oil was going to be dragged kicking and screaming to alternative energy? sure that might've been fun to watch -- but it's always been the case that they would finally go when it was less profitable for them to stay away.
- bowe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+12He is being underhanded. There's a couple of reasons why he is doing this other than wind power. If you read up on him, he has purchased a ton of water rights in Canada. (as well as rights to tar sands, which the corridor leads directly to). Not only does he believe in peak-oil, he also believes in peak-water. With a wind-mill corridor he can build a pipeline to bring fresh water southward and into the United States, to sell at a premium. He's already done a similar thing in Texas pairing wind with water. I think he's using the wind power more as a gimmick to get the water pipelines that he needs.
Pickens has a quote, "Water is the new oil."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25 ... - cheesehound, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8The thing that creeps me out here is that he proposes using natural gas to fuel cars rather than to just keep using it for electrical power creation and powering electric cars. Maybe he's just working from his own knowledge on fuel distribution,etc., but to me it seems that moving natural gas power from plants to cars is just lowering the efficiency of the operation while shifting our dependencies to another liquid fuel that is far less transferable and abundant than electricity.
Battery technology is by no means perfect and clean, but it definitely is making promising changes, and other electricity-storage techniques ranging from supercapacitors to air pressure make me wary of any plan that would want to use a more limiting power source. - roamzero, on 07/20/2008, -2/+8First the tech bubble, then the housing bubble. Next? The green bubble.
- utexas112, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1 / Commodities bubble.
- Gutommy, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I understand you reluctance to trust this guy. I am from the Texas panhandle and have quite a bit of experience with Pickens. I attended West Texas A&M University, whose business school once bore his name. His concern is himself in this situation, at least if his past is any indication. He made a lot of his early money by capitalizing on other people, such as siphoning off their retirement money. He has been selling off water from a lake (the only significant lake) in the Texas panhandle that supplies Amarillo with water and it is now drying up. He has tried to buy the water rights of my in-laws and many other residents of the panhandle to sell to bigger cities like Dallas. There are people who live in the panhandle of Texas and who will be effected by this plan. My wife's great uncle is at risk of losing his home so that a pipeline can be built to Dallas. Her uncle is 87 and his home has been in the family for 80+ years.
I am as big of a proponent for wind energy as anyone, and there is already some being utilized in the panhandle. I just want someone who will do it without screwing over people, and I don't think Pickens is that man. The Texas panhandle is a great place for this and I wish someone else could do it but I'm afraid with Pickens oil money, this just means more cash in his pockets and more angst on the residence of my home. To think that Picken's intentions are for anything other than himself seems ludicrous to me. - razorsharpwit, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1The Pickens Plan will be a success as long as it is privately funded.
http://www.ridelust.com/the-pickens-plan-or-the-ro ...
- MarkLaymon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19I have been following many of the wind power companies for a while now. The only thing I can see going on with them is the fact that they know they can make a pile of money if they get in now before the land rush has become full swing
- Babblin5, on 07/20/2008, -4/+10I kinda like this dude. Now, if he'll front me a few bucks...
- lajaw, on 07/20/2008, -35/+48"Now, the man who worked against Al Gore and challenged John Kerry is now promoting something that is traditionally unconservative."
What's "unconservative" about it? The man is out to make money. He isn't a dolt. He is a smart business man. And conservatives want to get off the foreign oil as much as the left. It just that the left expects us to give up some of our conveniences and lower our lifestyles to accommodate their plans. The left would just as soon have us living in mud huts as the "new World order" bunch would.- SaperKain, on 07/20/2008, -21/+12You are so full of ***** it’s spilling right out of your mouth onto your keyboard and thru the internet right into my living room.
- rudeboyskunk, on 07/20/2008, -14/+24Sorry, I'm about as far let as somebody can get, and I love my modern conveniences. I want to help bring the people living in mud huts out of that into nice, safe, clean housing. Way to make a terrible generalization about a group of people you know absolutely nothing about.
- stagmire, on 07/20/2008, -16/+4You sound like a spoiled hippie brat. What do you think our planet's gonna look like when a billion chinamen are rollin in Kompressors and *****? The last thing we need is for the turd world to start living a western standard of living.
- lajaw, on 07/20/2008, -13/+13But if you are truly left, you want me and my neighbors to pay for it.
- macweirdo42, on 07/20/2008, -5/+13@stagmire
Wow, that's the douchiest thing I've heard all week. - bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -4/+10@lajaw
EVERYONE should help pay for it, because it will help EVERYONE. The cost of your food and all shipped goods will go down, or at least not climb as much. That benefits YOU too! Better cars? Better tech? That benefits YOU TOO! Just because you don't want to use it RIGHT HERE, and RIGHT NOW doesn't mean you won't benefit from it.
Can't you think outside your 4 walls and 4 week time frame? - 007brendan, on 07/21/2008, -3/+3@bjornski
What if I grow my own food, or I buy it from a local farm so that shipping costs are zero. The cost of my food won't change. What If I ride a bike to work, or I work from home. Better cars aren't going to benefit me. The only difference between thieves and economic liberals is that the liberals pretend that the stealing is justified as long as they use the government to do it. If you have a great idea, then I encourage you to pursue it, but don't force me to pay for it.
Can't you realize that everyone in the country isn't exactly like you?
- RobotBuddha, on 07/20/2008, -3/+11I hate when people use the word conservative when what they mean is 'republican'. Same with using the word liberal when they mean democrat.
- stagmire, on 07/20/2008, -5/+2I hate it when people smugly insist that commonly used terms mean something other than what 99% of the population use them to mean.
- Deadpixel1221, on 07/20/2008, -4/+2I hate it when douchebags spout their stupid ideology over and over and over again ad naseum while insulting people who disagree with them only because they have no conception of the world outside of their own narrow minded and short sighted life experiences.
- bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7You're right about that, RobotBuddha.
Conservatives are now the LAST people who give a ***** about conserving anything. They've become the "I'll use up as much as I can as fast as I can" party.
You're right, though. Neo-CONS have no interest in conserving anything.
Granted, true conservatives don't think that way, but they keep voting for these Neo-CONS to represent them. I can understand their frustration, but THEY are the ones that wanted these people to represent them. - Deadpixel1221, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3By the way I'd like to point out that I was referring to conservatives like stagmire. I guess I'll have to be a little clearer next time.
/shrugs - winnestow, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2i am a conservative. i am not a republican.
- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7Well, the common misconception is that "conservatives" will do anything they can to quash alternative energy plans, which I would have thought would be the intention there.
What's really conservative is what's happening here--a private sector individual proposing something which, given current economic realities, is cost-competitive with what we're already using.- stagmire, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2"Well, the common misconception is that "conservatives" will do anything they can to quash alternative energy plans"
Well according to the ron paul douches, who claim to be the only true conservatives, climate change is an illuminati conspiracy and alternative energy is just part of their plot to institute global governance. So either way you cut it, it seems that this definition of "conservative" works. - Troy64, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2His plan really splits the middle between what conservatives want and what liberals want. Conservatives like the idea that it is practical and not being done by government, but think it should be done along with drilling for more oil and building nuclear power plants. Liberals like the fact that it uses wind energy but are not thrilled about the using natural gas for 20 years.
The best part is he can start this without the backing of either. - 007brendan, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1The sad part is, he's forced to go to the federal government to try and get tax breaks and subsidies, because otherwise, there is NO WAY wind power would be cost-competitive with oil or gas, and certainly not coal. Taxes are so high, and the oil companies receive so many tax breaks and incentives that the federal government has essentially made it impossible for any alternative fuel source to succeed. The only way an alternative fuel idea can go forward is if the congress subsidizes it, and I can only guess how many government pockets get lined along the way.
- stagmire, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2"Well, the common misconception is that "conservatives" will do anything they can to quash alternative energy plans"
- ffelix, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7Why are conservatives like this guy such cowards? Show me the evidence that Dems & liberals expect you to give up your MTV or whatever the f--k it is you're so scared about losing. We actually live pretty well under Dems in recent history. It wasn't Dems who just magically transformed the biggest surplus in history into the biggest debt in history without even making life better for the morons who voted for them...twice...in the face of clear evidence that it was a dumb thing to do. and don't even try to fob that one off on Congress.
- lajaw, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2Clinton never had a surplus. Do some research.
It's kinda jumbled, but take a look please.
Fiscal
year Year Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Where's that surplus? Check it out for yourselves.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?applicat ... - freedomics, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2Let's not stop at 2001. The fun's just beginning.
Year / Debt / Deficit / Interest Paid
FY2001 $5.81 trillion $133.29 billion $359.51 billion
FY2002 $6.23 trillion $420.77 billion $332.54 billion
FY2003 $6.78 trillion $555.00 billion $318.15 billion
FY2004 $7.38 trillion $595.82 billion $321.57 billion
FY2005 $7.93 trillion $553.66 billion $352.35 billion
FY2006 $8.51 trillion $574.26 billion $405.87 billion
FY2007 $9.07 trillion $562.87 billion $429.98 billion
- lajaw, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2Clinton never had a surplus. Do some research.
- SpinningHead, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4Mud huts? Its the "conservative" deregulation that helped drive up oil prices and render many Americans homeless. They also have had no problem dishing out tens of billions to the oil industry
- migshark, on 07/20/2008, -1/+19It's hard to argue with such a plan. I concede there are many fishy points for sure, but keep in mind the alternatives. This is the positive flipside, so don't be choosy beggars. Having said that, I'd like to remind people that In Obama's Blueprint for Change he states that he'll invest $150b over ten years for clean energy. By rounding up publicity and democratic support for himself, who do you think will be one of the first people offered a juicy slice of that $150b pie?
- zooplibob, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Can you explain whats wrong with enacting this plan AND opening up drilling? They arent mutually exclusive. In fact, opening up the US for more oil drill will PAY for this plan and then some, because of the increased drilling royalties the government will get.
I think any rational thinker will agree that we do everything possible to increase our energy supply. That means drilling now, and investing in alternatives for the future.
- zooplibob, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Can you explain whats wrong with enacting this plan AND opening up drilling? They arent mutually exclusive. In fact, opening up the US for more oil drill will PAY for this plan and then some, because of the increased drilling royalties the government will get.
- oboy, on 07/20/2008, -1/+23This is a guy who donated $165 million to Oklahoma State University, mostly for their sports. He's not shy about his money.
Those who are skeptical about his intentions, keep in mind. HE'S IN THE OIL BUSINESS. If he wanted to just make more money, he is definitely in a position to do so. This is a risk that will most likely make him money, but if you watch his video, the guy is about as simple and genuine as they come. He's a transparent guy who sees an opportunity that will help America, help his local area (Texas and Oklahoma) and help himself.- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+11He's in a position to realize the best of all worlds - helping to make the world (including his local areas) a better place, and making a boatload of cash doing it.
- brad3378, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1We're all in a position to make a boatload of cash if we play our cards right.
Jim Cramer (CNBC's Mad Money) is saying that 2009 will be the year of wind power.
That's where I'm putting my money.
- brad3378, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1We're all in a position to make a boatload of cash if we play our cards right.
- paradexes, on 07/20/2008, -1/+8Honestly nothing wrong with making money if it is helping everyone else at the same time. Its when you are doing things to gouge people that its a problem.
- pintomp3, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3he was also the primary funder of the swiftboat project.
On November 6, 2007, Pickens reportedly offered a million dollars to anyone able to dispute any claims made by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (SVPT), a group he had supported during the 2004 presidential election.[17] John Kerry, whose military record and anti-war activism during Vietnam was the target of the group's book and media campaign, sent Pickens a letter on November 16, 2007, accepting the challenge, requesting that Pickens donate the money to the Paralyzed Veterans of America should he succeed in disproving any of the SVPT claims.[17] In response to Kerry's acceptance of the challenge, Pickens issued a letter the same day, narrowing the original challenge to the SVPT ads, and requiring Kerry to provide his Vietnam journal, all of his military records, specifically those covering the years after his active duty service, and copies of all movies and tapes made during his service. Pickens' letter also challenged Kerry to agree to donate $1 million to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation, if Kerry "cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue."[18] Kerry later accused Pickens of "parsing and backtracking" on his initial offer and wrote that "I am prepared to prove the lie and marshal all the evidence, the question is whether you are prepared to fulfill your obligation."[19]
On 22 June 2008, a group of Vietnam veterans "working with Mr. Kerry" accepted the challenge and sent a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — with which they claimed to rebut several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.[20] Boone Pickens has responded with a message stating "In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads,” he wrote, “and, as a result, does not qualify for the $1 million."[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens#Swif ...
he sure worked hard to make sure the paralyzed vets don't get any money.- vault, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1What does the 'swift boat project' have to do with his investment in wind energy? Would you rather he made no investment at all? Anyone could have made the $300 million donation, you'd still complain.
- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+11He's in a position to realize the best of all worlds - helping to make the world (including his local areas) a better place, and making a boatload of cash doing it.
- Kirly, on 07/20/2008, -20/+4his plan can't work. electrical grids take a very long time to bring up to full power. wind power is variable. you can't have a variable level electric power grid. you people need to look into the technical feasibility of this plan before concluding that it "sounds good" or that it's "hard to argue with". it doesn't sound good and it's incredibly easy to debunk.
- Brad324, on 07/20/2008, -2/+10oh I see. Shut everything down then, Kirly has done the math.
- Kirly, on 07/20/2008, -9/+3well, someone had to do the real work. try it sometime.
- algaeturd, on 07/20/2008, -4/+12I'm starting to get really discouraged by the amount of people with dumb comments who are flying an American flag avatar.
- Kirly, on 07/20/2008, -9/+3i'm not sorry to discourage you. you should be looking into the technical feasibility instead of whining that i discouraged you,
- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -2/+3It's okay. During the last eight years, all one has to do to be a true patriot is a.) fly an American flag and b.) be the biggest idiot one can be. It's worked well for our Commander in Chief...
But his reign is over, so it's time to GROW A BRAIN, MORANS!
- mclaughlind, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8He isn't talking about one or two wind turbines; he's talking about wind farms stretching for miles on end, all linked together. While the chances of the entire MidWestern Corridor not having wind are not impossible, I would conclude that it is highly improbable seeing as how the border to border distance is roughly 1100 miles.
Undoubtedly with the United States, Canada and Mexico growing closer together because of NAFTA as well as several other pending trade agreements, our northern and southern neighbors will want to join in allowing the US to expand these wind farms onto greater areas of land further decreasing the chances of a wind shortage.
The variability of the plan is much less than you make out. Especially if there are multiple fall backs or reserves of say crude oil -- already in existence) in the event that wind stops blowing across the entire mid-continental United States for a long period of time.
More valid arguments against it would be "What sort of harm will this cause to the environment?" or "Will the American West experience a similar backlash and rising food prices on the global commodities market as it did when large corporations designated huge areas of their crops for Ethanol?"- Brad324, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6dude, did you not read his solid points? The man countered the assertments of it "sounds good" or that it's "hard to argue with", with the following (correct) assertments of: it "doesn't sound good" and it's "incredibly easy to debunk".
You see, what you people fail to understand is that wind, like, is totally unreliable. Duh - some days are windy and some aren't. Never mind the fact that it's near impossible for wind to completely come to a halt in all power plants simultaneously, or the fact that these power plants would probably be able to store a significant amount of power for periods of calm wind, or various other facts which support wind power, you're ignoring the fact that it's "incredibly easy to debunk."
- Brad324, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6dude, did you not read his solid points? The man countered the assertments of it "sounds good" or that it's "hard to argue with", with the following (correct) assertments of: it "doesn't sound good" and it's "incredibly easy to debunk".
- stagmire, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4"you can't have a variable level electric power grid"
What makes you think they would? Cover a large enough patch of land with wind turbines and you can predictably generate a continuous baseline level of current.
Also, you sound kinda dumb. - specialbuddy1, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3You don't know what you are talking about. They have wind turbines now that generate power off of natural gas when it's not windy so there is no variable. Do some technical research.
- wendelgee2, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Or you use capacitors/batteries to store excess (especially at night) and release it when it is needed.
- Brad324, on 07/20/2008, -2/+10oh I see. Shut everything down then, Kirly has done the math.
- SaperKain, on 07/20/2008, -13/+10I’m sorry but I just can’t get pass the fact that he is A) oilman and B) swift boater. You can just smell the mischief on this from miles away.
- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+3He's a businessman who sees that the writing is on the wall for the oil industry. He's gonna make a mint by pushing alternative energy... whats not to understand about that?
- positron, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5He's a businessman who sees that the writing is on the wall for the oil industry. He's gonna make a mint by pushing for alternative energy policies which favors his own business model and investment plans at the expense of his competitors'... whats not to understand about that?
/fixed - ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1It has yet to be determined which business model is the most effective when dealing with wind, or solar, or any other alternative source. Everybody is pushing their own model at this point. It's a bit too early to single him out.
- positron, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5He's a businessman who sees that the writing is on the wall for the oil industry. He's gonna make a mint by pushing for alternative energy policies which favors his own business model and investment plans at the expense of his competitors'... whats not to understand about that?
- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+3He's a businessman who sees that the writing is on the wall for the oil industry. He's gonna make a mint by pushing alternative energy... whats not to understand about that?
- tajitj, on 07/20/2008, -7/+15He does want to mandate the wind. I like a plan laid out by someone who has money and not a politician who just steals mine.
I want to know what Bob Barr thinks about it. Obama and McCain will not touch this.- macweirdo42, on 07/20/2008, -3/+5True dat... As much as I hate to say it, I've found human greed to be one of the most reliable forces in the universe. As such, when a businessman who became rich on oil comes out and says "Hey guys, maybe we should ease off on the whole oil dependency thing," I'm inclined to listen.
- Pococurante, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2Usually human greed is reliably bad for the world. In this rare case it's pretty darn cool.
- macweirdo42, on 07/20/2008, -3/+5True dat... As much as I hate to say it, I've found human greed to be one of the most reliable forces in the universe. As such, when a businessman who became rich on oil comes out and says "Hey guys, maybe we should ease off on the whole oil dependency thing," I'm inclined to listen.
- ceredron, on 07/20/2008, -7/+9Douchebag he may be... but even douchebags can stand up for what's right.
- Smurph0404, on 07/20/2008, -10/+4So our priorities should be:
1) Destroy all those who ever supported Bush
2) Solve our nation's problems
? - codyman, on 07/20/2008, -4/+22See, if congress allotted 300 million in taxpayer money to something like this.... probably about 275 million of that would end up going towards gold toilet seats and congressional vacations
- Thinbev, on 07/20/2008, -1/+6So true. Politicians suck at everything they do.
Our government should get out of the way, stop regulating the market place, dramatically lower taxes, and let the smart people take care of it.
The current Republican and Democrat politicians aren't smart. They're lazy, greedy, and harmful to our economy and our personal freedoms. We need to start electing small government, pro-Constitution people to all positions of government ASAP!!
Once we get that, we'll have a prosperous and peaceful America.
If you agree with what I just typed, visit www.CampaignForLiberty.com
- Thinbev, on 07/20/2008, -1/+6So true. Politicians suck at everything they do.
- spunkmyer, on 07/20/2008, -8/+4Keep in mind people that T-bone predicted oil would hit $150 a few months ago and it jumped dramatically the day he made his prediction. I feel he is one of the vocal few responsible for the mess we are in with all the speculation in the oil markets.
He's not the saint that you think he is.- maxhrk, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1if he is vocal for speculation and in secret he use it to push people to use alternative method of energy?
- specialbuddy1, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Wow, he said oil would hit $150 dollars? So did everyone else so what makes you think he's so special. It's not speculation that's hurting us anyway, it's the value of the dollar.
- bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2It has a hell of a lot more to do with speculation than you want to believe.
- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Well, today it is, at least; the last couple of months, though, that reasoning seems to be a classic example of the tail wagging the dog (as in, the dollar drops AFTER oil price moves.) Tomorrow it will be supply and demand. The next day, when people figure out that demand is down, it will be future demand from BRIC countries. After that, it will be a severe store season. After that, it will be due in some way to the United States' lack of a comprehensive energy plan. Still later, it will be due to unexpected inventory drops. Yet later, Israel and Iran will exchange words later. Once all other excuses are exhausted, we can go back to blaming the Fed.
- maxhrk, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1if he is vocal for speculation and in secret he use it to push people to use alternative method of energy?
- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -3/+12"It is an alternative to the drill and burn proposals that the Republicans are backing that, in theory, should yield the same if not better results from an economy perspective. "
Why can't they use both plans? Redirect electricity production to wind, use the freed gas for new gas cars, and drill oil to supplement the remaining oil cars. We are not going to get off all foreign oil, but we'll import a lot less than either one of these plans alone provides for.- drachemorder, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5"Why can't they use both plans?"
Because that would just make way too much sense. - winnestow, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1nuclear is our best solution
- drachemorder, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5"Why can't they use both plans?"
- breezytrees, on 07/20/2008, -4/+8Pickens likes the plan because his company is building the wind farms. Conflict of interest much?
Wind energy sucks though. It takes forever to break-even because of the energy costs to produce the giant aluminum towers. Then they break and resulting in high maintenance costs.... ..like they've been doing over the past 30 years.
Solar/nuclear energy is the way to go. Cheap, clean, easy. Europe is kicking ass with that combo atm.
/just my opinion- rodon, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Exactly. These wind towers require quite a bit of money to build, and maintain.
Pickens says he's not in this one for money. But then who's gonna get the construction and repair contracts for these wind farms? Someone who stands to make quite a bit of money.
I'm all for developing alternate forms of energy, it just seems to me that Pickens isn't in this one just for the enviro-cred. - emkaysmith, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4I saw something recently (sorry, I can't come up with a citation) that if only 15% of the available "open" rooftops in the U.S. (i.e., those not encumbered by chimneys, overhanging trees, etc) were covered with the current crop of high-efficiency solar panels (which can be made to look like shingles now, so as not to be obtrusive), that could produce as much as HALF the electricity we use. Even if those figures are optimistic, I think generous tax credits for solar implementation -- especially to corporations with huge factory roofs available -- would help a great deal.
- bitruvia, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0Nuclear is clean? Can we bury the spent fuel rods in your back yard? Does the word "oops" make a meltdown okay?
- rodon, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Exactly. These wind towers require quite a bit of money to build, and maintain.
- bossm4n, on 07/20/2008, -1/+20This should not be a left vs. right issue. Getting off our addiction to foreign oil should be the goal of every American. And let's keep adding solar, nuclear and a few other alternatives to the mix while we're at it.
- MortalynFlux, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5I like the idea. This should be part of a multi-pronged approach. One benefit of CNG is that mass transit and government vehicles already use it. Another benefit is that vehicles that use CNG require less maintenance and last longer. Yet another benefit is that you can have a CNG vehicle that also uses gas, in case a CNG station is not available. And last but not least: they do not pollute when using the CNG fuel. Overall, it's a practical solution. It would be even better if they mass-produced CNG/electric hybrids. We need to postpone the idea of hydrogen. It's just not practical in the short-term.
- TVarmy, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Hydrogen's biggest problem seems to be the laws of physics. Lithium ion batteries are already better at storing energy than electrolyzing hydrogen is at its theoretical max (75% vs 45%).
I didn't like the plan at first, because natural gas is kinda bait and switch in my mind as it is still a fossil fuel. However, it does burn cleaner, and we have plenty of it. It would also discourage the practice of "gas flaring," as using natural gas for transportation would drive up the price, making it more important for those who run oil wells to capture and ship it. Look up gas flares online; they burn about a third as much gas as America burns in a year. What is really good is that it would pay off quickly as opposed to drilling ANWR, and I think it would definitely help to improve plugin hybrid vehicles, which would ease the transition to all electric cars. Refueling at home would be nice, and we'd not have as much inertia from the oil companies, as we are using one of their products.
Batteries are the future, but they are developing too slowly in terms of price and energy density. CNG seems like a great band-aid until the tech is developed.- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"I didn't like the plan at first, because natural gas is kinda bait and switch in my mind as it is still a fossil fuel. However, it does burn cleaner, and we have plenty of it."
*snip*
"Batteries are the future, but they are developing too slowly in terms of price and energy density. CNG seems like a great band-aid until the tech is developed."
If you watch his video on pickensplan.org, that seems to be what he's getting at.
Not only do we have plenty of natural gas, but CNG cars can also run on biogas, meaning one could build biogas plants while we use ground-based natural gas; plus, a conversion to CNG is about the cheapest conversion which can be done.
I agree with one other poster who seems to think his wind corridory may be part of Pickens' evil "water is the new oil" plan, but at least his alt-energy transition plan seems to make sense.
- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"I didn't like the plan at first, because natural gas is kinda bait and switch in my mind as it is still a fossil fuel. However, it does burn cleaner, and we have plenty of it."
- TVarmy, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Hydrogen's biggest problem seems to be the laws of physics. Lithium ion batteries are already better at storing energy than electrolyzing hydrogen is at its theoretical max (75% vs 45%).
- userperson, on 07/20/2008, -2/+5I don't know what the solutions is, but we're less likely to find it if we have to abide by directives from the top. Remove the subsides and other artificial incentives and let the market decide.
- TVarmy, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4I don't know if that usually leads to sustainability. Capitalism tends to focus on growth for the sake of growth, while the environment tends to focus on homeostasis. True, there are forms of green capitalism, such as the ones advised by Cradle to Cradle, but the old-fashioned, industrial era types of capitalism tend to pay the most, so people are biased towards them.
This isn't to say that every form of subsidiary is for the good of the earth. The government pays subsidies for pesticides and fertilizers, but not organic farms, and a person buying a vehicle weighting over 3000 pounds, like a Hummer, for a business, is eligable for up to 100,000 dollars in tax breaks, while an electric or hybrid vehicle gets him nothing. Also, there are still depression-era subsidies for coal mines.- userperson, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Capitalism gives the people what they want. If you want to save the earth (from whatever) or a "sustainable" solution, and you know what to demand to achieve those, that's likely what someone will be eager to provide given enough demand.
- TVarmy, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4I don't know if that usually leads to sustainability. Capitalism tends to focus on growth for the sake of growth, while the environment tends to focus on homeostasis. True, there are forms of green capitalism, such as the ones advised by Cradle to Cradle, but the old-fashioned, industrial era types of capitalism tend to pay the most, so people are biased towards them.
- hivesster, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1T-Bone Pickens is a man of his word. Plus, he makes the best ribs in town.
- emkaysmith, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6Interesting ideas -- and if they came from anyone else, my antennae wouldn't have just popped up.
However.
I spent all my adult life in Texas, watching whatever sleazy scam Boone Pickens was up to at a given moment -- and it was always something, believe me. There's some shady angle he's keeping very carefully to himself, because he always has. He's almost as bad as H.L. Hunt was.
Good ideas or not, I wouldn't trust this character as far as I could throw the Alamo. - Barbarino, on 07/20/2008, -5/+4I still don't understand what any of this has to do with drilling. Drill already!
- jer2eydevil88, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1Drilling wont solve anything at all!!!!! We don't have any more capacity left in our refineries!!!
Drilling domestically will expose our natural treasures to pollution. - ElectricRebel, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Even Pickens think that oil production has peaked.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6U3X7_zTPBI
Get your ***** together. I think we should keep pumping and exploring, but the real solution is to get the hell off of oil. - jdh358, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Uh - we've done that. Here we are today. Next.
- jer2eydevil88, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1Drilling wont solve anything at all!!!!! We don't have any more capacity left in our refineries!!!
- Thinbev, on 07/20/2008, -3/+10I love it! Another great example of how the private sector works better than politicians and their government agencies.
Politicians want to tax us and then redistribute our hard earned money to their "green" business buddies. Obama, wants to invest 150 Billion of OUR money? This is crazy!!!!! What gives him the right to do that? Why would we let him do that?
Politicians suck at everything they do. When a government agency screws up, nothing happens to that agency. When a private company screws up, they go out of business... Which is why private companies do a better job than the Fed. Private companies have more to lose... The government always stays in business, even if they suck at what they're doing...
If you agree with what I just wrote I suggest you visit www.CampaignForLiberty.com.- freedomics, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2So why don't we privatize the government. Let's outsource the police, the military, the court system. Why, because the government sucks. Let's have KBR run the government, or maybe outsource the FBI to Blackwater.
We are foster parents in Florida. When Jeb Bush was governor, Florida privatized the foster care system. In our area, there is constant churn in the companies involved. Presently, the Sarasota YMCA oversees a fist full of other companies that take care of various tasks. It's unusual to see the same person more than once or twice due to the turnover. You can talk about how bad government sucks and how cool privatization is, but when it comes to foster children, privatization sucks. There's no incentive to deal with ***** up kids and families. Oh and by the way, it turns out it costs the state more to outsource foster care than it did to handle it internally.
I'm all for the free market and competition, but there's certain areas where the free market is not the answer. The same applies to government. The answer lies in finding the middle ground.
By the way, if you want a truly free market, then check out black markets. No government involvement, no regulation, no pussy democrats trying to redistribute your money. Straight up competition right up to shooting your competitor in the back of the head. Cool.- Thinbev, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Listen, there's no denying that there are some very corrupt and inefficient corporations out there. However, the corporations that ruin things for us are the ones that are protected by our government.
Corporations aren't the problem. The problem lies when there's collusion with government and corporations. If we had principled, small government, pro-Constitution politicians in office we would have a real free market economy. In a real free market economy, corporations compete to offer the best services at the best price and when they do a bad job, they go out of business. BUT when our politicians transfer our hard earned money to their corporate buddies with no bid contracts, those corporations aren't held accountable and have nothing to lose. This terrible practice is called corporatism... and both the Republican and Democrat politicians do it.
I suggest you watch this very interesting video. It gives real side by side examples of how the private Americans do better jobs than politicians:
http://ultramontane.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx? ...
Also, I'm not so sure what type of black market you're speaking of, but the black market has nothing to do with the free market. The black market exists ONLY because of government regulations. Things that are sold in the "black market" are deemed illegal by our government. I don't understand your thinking?
Visit: www.CampaignForLiberty.com - freedomics, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0For the record, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik. From a social standpoint, I'm very Libertarian. Not necessarily the same as the Constitution party, but at least cousins.
I believe in a reasonably regulated free market. Check out the book Naked Economics for an excellent and balanced look at macro economics and how the government can help or hurt the free market. At the end of the day, the markets need some government involvement to work properly.
You are correct that black markets are created by excessive government taxation (cigarettes) and certainly government laws (drugs, prostitution, etc.) My point is that these markets have absolutely no government interference, other than the obvious interference of getting shut down if they get caught. With no government regulation, no courts to enforce contracts, etc. it brings a whole new meaning to free market. Instead of the best idea winning in the market place, the most ruthless entity eventually takes over (until a more ruthless entity comes along). Think Pablo Escobar.
My original post was probably a little off-topic. You were ranting about income redistribution while I was ranting about government outsourcing of critical services (child protection).
I do want the government to provide a minimal safety net for our least protected citizens, and yes, that will require income redistribution. I have a mentally and physically handicapped teenage son who through no fault of his own will never be able to fully take care of himself. He is fortunate in that he has parents and family that be there for him with only minimal input from the government. However, having a handicapped child has exposed me to many not-so-fortunate people. It would be nice to think that if we didn't have to pay taxes, we would all freely donate enough money to charities to ensure the survivability of those who can't compete in our meritocracy. The reality is that we would just use the extra money to buy a bigger plasma TV.
- Thinbev, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Listen, there's no denying that there are some very corrupt and inefficient corporations out there. However, the corporations that ruin things for us are the ones that are protected by our government.
- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1"Politicians want to tax us and then redistribute our hard earned money to their "green" business buddies. Obama, wants to invest 150 Billion of OUR money? This is crazy!!!!! What gives him the right to do that? Why would we let him do that?"
That's what elections are for. The government's duties require your money. If your against any taxation, then everything needs to be privatized - roads, schools, police, all of that comes from elected officials investing YOUR money - bitruvia, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0Um, this is another example of the private sector looking for corporate welfare. Don't be shocked if some private property gets redistributed via emininent domain a la Home Depot and Costco in the process of enriching a billionaire.
Like someone else said, he doesn't need a publicity campaign to do this on his own, he could just shut up and DO it.
- freedomics, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2So why don't we privatize the government. Let's outsource the police, the military, the court system. Why, because the government sucks. Let's have KBR run the government, or maybe outsource the FBI to Blackwater.
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -4/+4My first reaction is to be suspicious: anytime someone/something with lots of money starts directly advertising their plan to the public it's because they will make a fortune if the people are stupid enough to believe them (ie. Indian gambling, drug company advertising, etc., etc.). So, my guess is T. Boone is in this for himself and there are some details yet to come out.
Now, that having been said, there are a couple of technical glitches here.
1. There may be 8,000,000 cars in the world the at run compressed natural gas (CNG), but not in this country. And that the article tries to use this little fact to convince us is a bad sign ... it's an attempt to mislead the reader. In this country almost all cars run on gasoline and there will need to be tremendous expense to modify them to run on CNG (or replace them). Also, there will need to be an outlay for CNG service at gas stations that are safe enough for stupid people to use not to mention the added hazard of carrying pressurized tanks of the stuff (read: bombs) in our cars. CNG is NOT a dream fuel for automobiles.
2. Wind power is great and all, but until we have a way of storing the output it's a non-starter because we can't tell the wind to blow. If there's no way to store energy on off-peak times, the grid will go down unless there is sufficient nuclear/fossil/other potential to take up the slack which makes the wind resources redundant. The redundancy would be fine if wind were cheaper, but it isn't ... nuclear is another matter.
3. Ramp up time. Assuming we had a system to store (efficiently) electricity (McCain's battery), which we don't, how long will it take to build enough capacity to really make a difference? The Democrats have this 10-year number that gets applied to every new oil project that gets suggested. Will this take more than 10 years to build? I'm guessing it will.
Here's my idea: do all of it. Start new drilling in ANWR and the shelf. Even if it takes a while (couple of years), because new production is coming on-line the commodities traders will think twice before bidding the future price up. Because the oil companies are going to be doing this for a profit, they'll be the ones putting up the money and effort to make it happen ... and they will, quickly. Start new nuclear projects, lots of them, and funnel money into fuel reprocessing technology to keep the waste problem to a minimum. The French and the Japanese have lots of experience doing fuel reprocessing and we can learn from them. Lastly, start the 'renewable' projects too, but these things aren't going to replace nuclear and fossil until we can store their output, so let's stop pretending otherwise and deal with reality.- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3"Wind power is great and all, but until we have a way of storing the output it's a non-starter because we can't tell the wind to blow. If there's no way to store energy on off-peak times, the grid will go down unless there is sufficient nuclear/fossil/other potential to take up the slack which makes the wind resources redundant. The redundancy would be fine if wind were cheaper, but it isn't ... nuclear is another matter."
Not necessarily. You could have fuel/coal burning plants which would run low when the wind turbines made a lot of energy, and run very high when the turbines would be down.
As a result, less coal and less oil burnt.- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Yes, as I said:
"If there's no way to store energy on off-peak times, the grid will go down unless there is sufficient nuclear/fossil/other potential to take up the slack which makes the wind resources redundant"
So, the "fuel/coal burning plants which would run low when the wind turbines made a lot of energy, and run very high when the turbines would be down." are all that's needed to supply the energy demand. Thus, the wind generation is redundant -- we will need to meet our demand without a single watt from wind if we don't want a black/brown out. It's a bit cleaner (maybe, not necessarily for nuclear), but wind is more expensive. So, why are we focusing on the redundant generation power with wind when we can simply build the capacity we need with nuclear or whatever? Priorities ...
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Yes, as I said:
- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1There are proven ways of storing energy for off--peak times. I can't speak to the efficiency or other pros/cons, but there's flywheels, molten salt, pumping water into a reservoir, to name a few.
- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3"Wind power is great and all, but until we have a way of storing the output it's a non-starter because we can't tell the wind to blow. If there's no way to store energy on off-peak times, the grid will go down unless there is sufficient nuclear/fossil/other potential to take up the slack which makes the wind resources redundant. The redundancy would be fine if wind were cheaper, but it isn't ... nuclear is another matter."
- dognose, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Can someone explain this?
"At 4,000 megawatts — the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants — the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States."
From awea.org
total national capacity is 18,302 MW, Texas alone already has 5,316.65 MW - Brassbud, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Or, instead of destroying the Great Plains with wind turbines and the huge, inefficient infrastructure to support them, we could just build a couple more nuke plants per state and be done with it.
- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -7/+2and then pay a lot of reparations to the families who suffer from the meltdowns.
The fact that we haven't had any yet, is just a tribute to not using nuclear power.- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2You're being buried for assuming there will be meltdowns. The two big nuclear disasters were Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and both were caused by human error. All modern reactors are designed to be passively cooled, so if something goes wrong, it shuts down. France gets the majority of their power from nuclear plants, and there's never been a major incident.
Modern nuclear plants are completely safe.
- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2You're being buried for assuming there will be meltdowns. The two big nuclear disasters were Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and both were caused by human error. All modern reactors are designed to be passively cooled, so if something goes wrong, it shuts down. France gets the majority of their power from nuclear plants, and there's never been a major incident.
- jer2eydevil88, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6doom you sir are an idiot.
The problem with building Nuclear plants is that they take a very long time to build and not many people would want to live near them. My grandfather was a nuclear engineer and he once explained the USA nuclear plant construction and disaster avoidance process to me. "We build a plant over seven years and we take careful steps to insure its built to withstand anything from a bomb to a 747 crashing into it. The Russians build a plant over the course of a year and scrap as much building material as they possibly can without frying themselves." I'm not saying he was 100% right because we did have 3 mile isle but if you read up on these disasters all plants have since removed the ability for control rods to be completely removed and sensors are much more commonplace.
- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -7/+2and then pay a lot of reparations to the families who suffer from the meltdowns.
- yaosio, on 07/20/2008, -2/+3Anybody figure out why his plan ignores all renewable power sources except wind?
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Yes, because he isn't going to make money off the other (non-wind) renewable power sources. His advertising campaign is an investment not a public service...
- bigskank, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Pickens is planning the worlds' largest windfarm in TX. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231397/
Of course he'd like to see the country start to move to wind. He'll make money.
He also owns a huge natural gas company (Mesa Petroleum). It owns a ton of natural gas reserves. So, he'd also like to see natural gas used more. He'll make more money.
Is there anything nefarious about this? Not really. He's making money and doing something that's better for the environment. He also has a plan to get us there in a relatively quick timeframe, which is more than can be said for a lot of energy proposals. - jer2eydevil88, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Time. It would take a lot of time to get another alternative up and running. These could be built and the infrastructure added within three years.
- bigskank, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Pickens is planning the worlds' largest windfarm in TX. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19231397/
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Yes, because he isn't going to make money off the other (non-wind) renewable power sources. His advertising campaign is an investment not a public service...
- Drakk0n, on 07/20/2008, -4/+2Are the democrats so pathetic that it takes a Republican oil man to come up with a plan for them to follow? I mean are these really the people that were overwhelmingly supported the last election to take control of both houses? I could've sworn i voted for someone that would bring some fresh ideas in, and pelosi and reid would be great leaders - all I'm seeing is a buncha spinning tires and two lap-dogs who seem to follow Republican leads.
- nastronomical, on 07/20/2008, -9/+1The day solar and wind can power a factory, town and city without intteruption 24/7 365 days a year with zero downtime and the ability to ramp up to meet demand instantly, is when its viable.....until then. Its a fantasy fueled by ignorance and wishful thinking.
- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2There are towns that are powered entirely by wind, and using a mix of renewables and possibly nuclear baseload can ensure quick ramp up. And no plant has ever or will ever have zero downtime.
If your view is that nothing should be done unless it can be done perfectly with zero risk, then you must spend a lot of time waiting ...- nastronomical, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Cost Benefit analysis. I know your uneducated mind lacks the ability to understand it but try.
- thirdoffive, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2If continuity is really that big of a problem you can solve it by storing some of the energy.
Use some power to force water into a reservoir at a higher elevation. When you need extra power just open valves from the reservoir and let the water flowing downhill spin turbines at a hydroelectric facility.
That may not work in extremely flat areas but anyplace near mountains or highlands can store as much energy as needed.- nastronomical, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1LOL Sir, the Idiot award is yours.
- cnosal, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2There are towns that are powered entirely by wind, and using a mix of renewables and possibly nuclear baseload can ensure quick ramp up. And no plant has ever or will ever have zero downtime.
- Dellitron, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5Democrats like IT .. WE ALL LIKE PICKINS PLAN !
the man is a American Hero putting up his own MONEY
to make this happen for US !
Drilling is a thing of the past .. you have to be a moron to
think we will drill our way out of this Oil mess ...
We are damm sick of our money .. being sent overseas
and to 2 bit dictators like Venezuela.- BradMajors, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Are the taxpayers also a "hero" for paying for part of Picken's plan?
- stonewall123, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1yes
- Lazydriver, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Venezuela's a dictator? Senor Venezuela, I beg your mercy!!!
- BradMajors, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Are the taxpayers also a "hero" for paying for part of Picken's plan?
- smoothmedia, on 07/20/2008, -2/+7Last time I checked, there's nothing wrong about making money in America. If Pickens plan somehow makes him even more rich, but helps the environment and makes the US more energy independent...more power to him!
It takes guys like this with "enlightened self interest" to realize that the best business practices in the long run are sustainable environmentally. - pjr12345, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9If Pickens wishes to bet his fortune on his plan, I say, "HAVE AT IT!" As soon as he makes a play for your and my money (aka tax dollars), then he has crossed the line. Any plan that begs for public funding is a boondoggle.
- philipl411, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7I agree. but Texas is already starting to fund his plan. They are going to spend 4.6 billion dollar to build transmission lines to these windmills. If its such a great ideal, why does he need public funding?
- JHB800, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Because he already spent 2 billion dollars on the windmills with plans for 10 billion dollars more in new windmills in the future. It is not unreasonable for them to ask the taxpayers to help pay for the new lines to transmit the power, especially since they'll all get cheaper energy prices because of it.
- philipl411, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7I agree. but Texas is already starting to fund his plan. They are going to spend 4.6 billion dollar to build transmission lines to these windmills. If its such a great ideal, why does he need public funding?
- skews13, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1pickens is a buisnessman. he doesn't make moves that are not in his best interest. if he is going to put his own money up. he can do whatever he wants to. most big players now know they are the ones with the venture capital, to make things like this happen. the enviornmentalists will ironically enough get what they wanted from pure unadulterated capitalism. eventually.
- BradMajors, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9Pickens is promoting this plan because he wants taxpayers to pay for building transmission lines to his wind farms. His wind farm would not be economical if he had to build his own transmission lines. His plan has been a success. The Texas PUC has agreed to build the transmission lines on a 2 to 1 vote. The one negative vote was from a commissioner who thought the wind farms should have paid for some of the cost.
- JHB800, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Well, considering that the wind farms cost several billion dollars, its not unreasonable to ask the taxpayers to share the burden by paying for the transmission lines.
- BradMajors, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2True. But it highlights a problem with wind power. The wind turbines need to be where the wind is located while natural gas power plants can be sited where the power is needed.
- BradMajors, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2True. But it highlights a problem with wind power. The wind turbines need to be where the wind is located while natural gas power plants can be sited where the power is needed.
- JHB800, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Well, considering that the wind farms cost several billion dollars, its not unreasonable to ask the taxpayers to share the burden by paying for the transmission lines.
- amightywind, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3A consequence of Pickens Plan that democrats ignore is that it requires massive new sources of natural gas and CNG to replace diesel and gasoline for transportation. That means massive drilling, folks, and creation of vast new pipeline networks. The only plan the liberals have offered to increase supply is to rob the SPR. Way to go, Nancy.
- BarneyF, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1The article claims that Pickens criticizes Gore, but that is not true. He simply says his plan has a different goal than Gore's plan.
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"These could be built and the infrastructure added within three years" ... says who? Never ask the barber if you need a haircut.
- randumbusername, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2the democrat party (and many republicans too) like anything that spends money. environmentalism is the new consumer trend and democrats are going to throw bones to the those whom feed on "saving the planet" to get votes. hell democrats would like the iraq war if a democrat initiated it.
i heard pickens not to long ago on cnbc. essentially he wants government to get involved to get land rights (and probably whatever else he can get. since everyone is on the bandwagon of this "being a good idea" my next step is to buy shares of companies that stand to benefit so i can recoup some of my tax money. - BECoole, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3I like Pickens, but I believe that his wind farm plans will fail. The Europeans already have experience with this and there are some facts that make wind a non-starter.
1) In no place in the world does the wind blow sufficiently hard more than 30% of the time.
2) We do not have the tech to store energy the other 70% of the time.
3)The wind starts and stops suddenly, not necessarily in sync with demand.
4) The preceding 3 facts make it necessary to back up wind with traditional energy forms such as coal or nuclear.
5) Coal nor nukes ramp up sufficiently fast to keep the energy supply constant enough.
6) All this means that you have to run a parallel system at about 90% capacity at all times. This means wind costs almost double what a coal or nuke alone would cost since you are paying for the windmills and a constantly running coal or nuke plant too.- JHB800, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Texas is one of the places with the most consistent winds. It is one of the only states where wind power on this scale would actually be feasible.
- TheCorpsxl, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Actually most of the states in the Midwest would be good candidates for wind. The Dakotas are probably the states with the richest areas of wind.
- TheCorpsxl, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Your coal and nucs will not likely ramp up because they are already running all the time >80% capacity factor. This is because they are the cheapest form of energy right now. What you will see is your quick fire generation such as your quick fire natural gas plants running more. Natural gas plants are very expensive to run, and usually only run at the peak hours of the day.
- JHB800, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Texas is one of the places with the most consistent winds. It is one of the only states where wind power on this scale would actually be feasible.
- JrtD, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3Pickens doesn't need any ad to spend money to produce energy; he could just do it. So what is the real reason he is running those ads?
The decisions we make in the next few years can set us on a course that can make us dependent for generations on new mega-monopolies. Look how John D. Rockefeller killed alcohol-based biofuel. He funded Christian women groups who didn't want anyone drinking alcohol. How convenient for him that these good Christian women convinced Congress to make it illegal to make alcohol for any purpose (because someone might drink it).
Prohibition forced Henry Ford to switch his cars from running on biofuel to gas fuel, and Rockefeller got obscenely rich from his Standard Oil monopoly. Oil companies would not be holding us hostage now if prohibition hadn't prevented us from developing an infrastructure using biofuels made locally. We wouldn't be at war in Iraq or Afghanistan if prohibition hadn't forced our country to depend on gasoline.
Pickens ad isn't surprising if you look at it as a plan to make sure HE and HIS COMPANY get a huge piece of the energy pie. If he can compete fairly, more power to him. But watch out. Let's make sure he doesn't push anything through Congress that will kill other energy options. Don't trust anyone who helped fund the deceptive swift-boat ads. - TheCorpsxl, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Natural gas will always be a part of the energy mix and never be totally replaced by wind. What many people forget is that it is important to be diverse in your energy portfolio. When the wind isn't blowing you need quick fire generation such as Combustion Turbine(CT) Gas plants so your lights will stay on. Through out the day you have three primary groups on generation: base load (coal and nuclear) load following (Combined Cycle etc..) and peaking (CT's ). All three of these groups are important to keeping your lights on. Wind is a valuable resource that will undoubtedly be part of the generation mix in the future, but will never totally replace natural gas.
- philipl411, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2one there is no proof that it will be cheaper. But this line of reasoning is the same I see used to build billion dollar stadiums for rich sports teams owners. I get no benefit from wealth sport teams and their players. i will get no benefit from these wind mills. Build nuke plants instead
- marsbeyond, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Look just face it. If you are a democrat or a republican this will be good for America. We need more electric cars and CNG vehicles. This is a no brainer. The real question is why didn't T. Boone do this ten years ago?? Yes the Texas tax payer will be hit up big time for power lines to Dallas. Yes he is going to get a water pipeline right next to the transmission corridor. So what? I am glad he is going to make some money on this. He seems to be one of the few people in this country willing to do anything! I just hope he uses the advanced windmills with ducts that minimize bird strikes and provide a surface for thin film photovoltaic to be a part of it too!
- bitruvia, on 08/05/2008, -0/+0This makes no sense at all
If this is a good idea, either taxpayers could fund it outright, or the private sector could pick up the ball and do it w/o any welfare.
Public/private partnerships always suck and always enrich someone who should be doing something w/o a handout, whether it's this or something as dubious as a Nascar Hall of Fame. Billionaires have never and will never need a handout of any kind, whether from liberals, conservatives or any other pandering ideology. What a perverse place and time we live in.
If this is a brilliant business idea, AND you are already a billionaire, then just do it. What are you waiting for Pickens?
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by