Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

How T. Boone Pickens' Energy Plan Just Got Killed

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted October 9, 2008.


The new bailout plan passed by Congress may have put the nail in the coffin on Pickens' dangerous energy proposal.
Advertisement

The financial bailout bill passed by Congress may have once and for all put an end to T. Boone Pickens' energy plan. Let me explain.

Until the financial meltdown obliterated all other news coverage, T. Boone and his energy plan were everywhere. His book, The First Billion Is the Hardest, is number two on the bestseller list. During the Republican and Democrat Conventions his press conferences were attended by a fawning media, virtually all of who filed stories with the theme "oil man turns wind energy advocate."

Indeed, even the more than casual reader might come away believing the Pickens Energy Plan was all about wind energy. T. Boone's web site does little to contradict that impression. It displays nothing but wind turbines.

But expanding wind energy is not the key element in his plan. The reason is that that the plan's goal is to reduce our dependence on oil and the electric sector uses very little oil. Thus expanding wind-generated electricity does little to move us in that direction. Instead, the heart of Pickens' plan is to purportedly use increased wind energy to back out the natural gas in our electricity system. Pickens wants to eliminate our use of natural gas to generate electricity and instead use it to in our vehicles.

In California, Pickens has been more upfront about his intentions. The Texas oil and gas billionaire has single handedly financed a ballot initiative that would raise $3 billion for incentives for vehicles using cleaner fuels. The initiative heavily favors natural gas vehicles. The biggest rebates would go toward the purchase of heavy-duty trucks and transit buses fueled by natural gas. Only natural gas vehicles would quality for the largest rebate for passenger vehicles -- $10,000.

The primary beneficiary of this ballot initiative would be Clean Energy, the nation's biggest supplier of natural gas for transportation needs. Mr. Pickens is majority shareholder of Clean Energy.

The Pickens energy proposal has a fatal flaw. Transforming our transportation fleet to natural gas will require massive investments in new engines and new fueling systems. Although largely buried in the fine print, Pickens isn't proposing to use natural gas to entirely replace transportation fuels derived from oil. His goal is a 20 percent replacement. So after 15-20 years and the expenditure of tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars we would then have a transportation system still 80 percent dependent on oil and 20 percent dependent on a fossil fuel whose life expectancy is not much longer than oil's.

A far better plan, and one proposed by a growing number of groups and individuals (including my own, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in a recent report titled Driving Our Way to Energy Independence)is to electrify our transportation system. Instead of converting part of our transportation system to natural gas, only to have to then convert it again to renewable fuels, we should convert the transportation system to electricity, and make that electricity increasingly renewable as solar and wind power expand.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: energy, natural gas, renewable energy, clean energy, wind energy, t. boone pickens, pickens

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Shortsighted.
Posted by: kittynboi on Oct 9, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this article isn't looking at the whole picture. The Pickens Plan, for all it's fault, DOES promote moving our electricity towards wind based power. The author acts as if this is irrelevant because we get little electricity from oil.

But we do get electricity from COAL, which is much dirtier than oil and probably the single biggest contributor to Co2 emissions on the planet.

Moving us away from coal is just as important as moving us away from oil, and THAT battle is going to take place on the grid, not on the road.

http://incredibleicarus.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forward thinking... Posted by: Wells
Pickens misused wind to window-dress his otherwise sinister fossil fuel and nuclear plans.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 9, 2008 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you thought oil tycoons reform overnight?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we adopted Picken's plan...
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 9, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he would continue laughing all the way to the bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I get it.
Posted by: bobtr900 on Oct 9, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T. Boone Pickens wants to do for natural gas what he did for his oil companies. He wants to get so many people using natural gas in their vehicles that the demand will increase so much that there will be enormous shortages of it and he and his scum can set the prices of it so it will also skyrocket and people will freeze in the winter and commit suicide (see Ehrenreich's writings) rather than freeze to death or watch their children freeze to death.

But once again that will be okay because the fetus will not be killled, or so he would like us all to believe.

Pickens is a piece of scum, just as the Bush family are scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

from capitalisme to combi world.
Posted by: richholland on Oct 9, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Great mr.Pickens awakes the alternet commentors who believe the solution is sustainable energy. Bullshit.

The first problem for the USA is the set up of Public AND private combinations of production.

In Asia and Europe soon we have 80/20 =
80% oil/20 ethanol.

If your energy is chickenshit and it is controlled by the McChickencorporation you are still in the shit
The CEO wants a $ 3.000.000 per year
The shareholders want money
and you are still cold and poor.

Americans donot give your responsibility away to profithunters.
Demand the sustainable energy by corporations of three parties;
state/workers/capitalists.
And vote this time OBAMA and start the organisation of a GREEN PARTY soon after that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check Your FACTS...
Posted by: VickyinSD on Oct 9, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I HAVE!!!

The cost to convert existing vehicles to CNG (from what I've researched) is under $1000, and the benefits are GREAT!

Yes... you will lose a little power going up hills when running CNG, so that's the point where you flip the switch over to gasoline instead. However, diesel engines will run even better when the fuel is mixed, from what I've been found out anyway.

The cost for CNG is about 1/2, and the MPG is about twice that of gas. With gas prices fluctuating more than the national economy, I've been trying to figure out a way to convert my vehicle over (on disability income) because I sure can't afford to keep sending my $ overseas!

Personally, I think we should be offering some kind of rebate/incentive to those who choose to convert their vehicles to CNG... and let wind and solar serve our electricity needs wherever possible! I know that the wind blows almost all day where I live, and I'm in So Cal, so the sun shines 99% of the year. But... I can't put a windmill in my yard because of local HOA rules/regulations and bullshit... that REALLY needs to change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check Your FACTS... Posted by: Gettig
PS...
Posted by: VickyinSD on Oct 9, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BP gas, otherwise known as Arco in So Cal, is currently the cheapest gas available in on average... as long as you pay with cash not credit.

I don't see the other oil companies doing ANYTHING for the consumer besides fuck us dry!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prices for energy sources
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Is the
sun shining the most when you are cold? Of course not. It is winter because
the days are shorter. Is the wind blowing the most when you are the coldest? I
don't know.]

Wind and solar look like bad bets for keeping you warm in the winter unless you
live in a very unusual place.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take your NUCLEAR power and... Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: Take your NUCLEAR power and... Posted by: counterpoint
» If you want a... Posted by: VickyinSD
» Utter Nonsense Posted by: Jim Shaw
» Muscle power Posted by: Daniel35
Local regulations versus wind power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your big troubles will start when your gizmo falls off of
whatever and kills somebody.

Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture."

[No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Compare this to Chernobyl Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Compare this to Chernobyl Posted by: VickyinSD
» In addition... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Chernobyl???? Posted by: gellero1
The Answer You Refuse To Think About
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 9, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are addicted to economic growth because every year there are more people needing more services, so shortages are inevitable. But if we peacefully reduce the human population there will be plenty of resources for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's Time For Peaceful Change. Posted by: Last Chance
» We already have this Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Not Even Close Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Not Even Close Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: We already have this Posted by: Daniel35
» Amen! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Amen! Posted by: VickyinSD
» The Answer Is -- Posted by: Last Chance
Trading One Monoply for another
Posted by: Phred42 on Oct 9, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is NOT progress.

I've been saying this since day one.

The only permanent solution is decentralized power sources.

Sorry T-Bone - no Monoply

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thais don't know Pickens
Posted by: Jingjohk on Oct 9, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing from Bangkok , Thailand. Over here the majority of the thousands of taxis and buses run on natural gas.Alot of delivery and tractor trailer trucks also run on cng. There are plenty of conversion shops also. There is even a GM manufacturer plant that make the cng dual fuel Chevy Colorado pick up and the Chevy cng Optra passenger car for Thais. The cng Optra costs $1300 U.S. more than the same gasoline model Optra. NGV's are very popular here, emissions are cleaner and fuel is cheaper. And you know what else ? Pickens has nothing to do with it. It seems to me this blog is not as concerned with our environment, energy independence or the welfare of our nation, but people that just can't stand the thought of Pickens making a few extra bucks to leave to charity when he drops dead. I can see prop 10 in California getting shot down because the state can't afford it, but not because people hate billionares.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oil will be around for a long time
Posted by: edgar1 on Oct 9, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's what obama and pickens choose not to emphasize. and that's why drilling in north america makes sense. in ten years we will still need plenty of gasoline to power commercial transportation as well as personal cars. natural gas and alternatives will be produced in greater quantity for transportation when and if the price of oil rises beyond what consumers including the trucking industry will pay.

there is no need for any govt subsidy for any form of energy. given the budget deficit explosion, no responsible Congress should vote for fuel (or agriculture or "public" education or healthcare) subsidies anyway, because the subsidies are just fiat, phony printing press money anyway. If people want "services", they now must pay for them out of real savings from real work. Bush, McCain(govt pays people's mortgages?) or Obama Socialism is the road to collapse and fascism.

Boone wants to sell natural gas to auto manufacturers-go ahead JR- its a free country. But not a dime of "public" funny money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excessive wishful thinking
Posted by: GreenRanger on Oct 9, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To suggest that the fate of Proposition 10 in California or the federal bailout will "kill" the Pickens Plan is wishful, misguided thinking on Morris' part. Americans will not embrace electric cars until better technology is developed. Morris also ignores key elements of the Pickens approach -- reducing foreign oil imports by a third over the next decade, reducing carbon emissions by at least 20%, and having a concrete plan that can be implemented in a matter of years not decades. That's why several political leaders, including former energy secretary Bill Richardson, support Pickens. More than 850,000 Americans have signed up to support Pickens and a national bipartsan survey released yesterday indicated that more than 8 in 10 Americans support the Pickens approach. Go, Boone, go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Myth About Nuclear Energy Parading As Truth
Posted by: Liberty G on Oct 9, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having spent some time during 1979-80 as research associate at an organization educating on energy options, I'm sick of the half-truths and lies still being put forth by proponents of nuclear power. Here are some real facts:

1. MONEY: What actually killed nukes years back was, unfortunately, not concern for their risk to people - it was the economics. Despite the spurious statistics generated by profit-seekers, nuclear energy is far too expensive to ever stand on its own financially. Take a careful look at legislation to re-introduce this nightmare to the U.S. Simply, it requires the public to put up the billions of dollars in guarantees that no private financier in his/her right mind would risk.

2. ENVIRONMENT: The financial picture is skewed, as is common with corporatocracy types, by ignoring environmental factors. Nuclear waste must be kept cool during the 100s or thousands of years of storage required by the half-life of its elements. And cooling means energy. Also, it is typical for large nuclear waste sites to leach toxins into nearby soil and water. Witness the Hanford "reservation" - a disaster for the state of Washington and adjacent Oregon, especially the Columbia River.

3. HEALTH: A "perfectly operating" nuclear plant emits low levels of radiation on a daily basis, through air and water. And, there is evidence (heavily suppressed) that workers are experiencing higher rates of cancer and other conditions. A group of demonstrators against the Millstone plant in CT a few years back was heavily populated with such workers. There is even some question as to whether the radioactive emissions there might have some connection with Lyme Disease, as a possible genetic mutation of a less deadly microbe in the waters of Lyme, CT, near Millstone. It is clearly proven that low levels of toxins, including radiation, are more likely to produce mutations and cancer, over a period of years, as opposed to immediate damage.
Add to effects at and near the plant the exposure of workers at other points of the nuclear cycle - mining and fuel processing.

4. HOMELAND SECURITY: There have been problems with security at many nuclear plants, and as long as human beings run them, no total safety can be assured. There is a risk of nuclear material being stolen, among other concerns. In addition, every nuclear production or processing plant built is a natural target for terrorists.

5. ENERGY PRODUCTION: Again, if one takes into account all the stages of production, the picture is very different than the rosy one painted by proponents. Energy is utilized in mining, processing, manufacture and operation.
At least one competent scientist found that little NET ENERGY was actually obtained by the nuclear cycle.

6. THE GREATEST MYTH: Renewable alternatives can't do the job? Balderdash. The truth here is they can't be monopolized by large entities making billions of dollars. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innovations can allow individuals and communities to produce clean, inexpensive energy for themselves. And the last thing the corporatocracy wants is energy independence - from them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PARASITISM IS THE PLAN
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Oct 9, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THEY ARE HOLDING THE OIL RESOURCE AND ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE WOULD BE "AGAINST THEIR INTEREST"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elctromuters
Posted by: solrev on Oct 9, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T bone is a gas man and wants to make money selling his product. He made one mistake and that was using gas in cars. If I were Obama I would push the automotive industry into the electric car business, but I would also mandate that gas generation and wind produce the additional electricity requirements. How about that for a job stimulus package? Solar technology is not there yet. If all are electricity were produced by gas, we would reduce co2 emissions by 50%. Gas plants are also much cheaper than nuclear. We could by the time to find alternative sources. I do not know how to calculate the reduction in pollution which commuter electric traffic would produce, but it must be great. We also have a tremendous supply of methane sitting on the bottom of our oceans. If we could convince China to skip coal and go to gas, we could attain livable pollution levels for the next 1000 years. We could buy the time to create biodiesel for power transportation needs, which could be carbon neutral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rooftop Solar Arrays?
Posted by: greenPuker on Oct 9, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."households generate transportation fuel from their rooftop solar array and store it in the vehicles' batteries, and, if needed, use their electric vehicles as backup power plants for their homes."

Let's see...So everybody would NOT work... just stay home and charge their car batteries from their rooftop solar array? Cheez.. numnuts! I can't think of a faster way to go broke!

The average household in the United States uses about 8,900 kilowatt-hours of electricity each year. That's over 1 Kilowatt every hour of the day! One 4 foot by 30 foot solar array can generate 700 watts every hour. Close...but no cigar. Gonna need a bigger array and some way to store the electrical energy until PEAK hours AT NIGHT!
You're talkin' big bucks. And what happens if you have a cloudy day?? Uh..oh? Back to the drawing board!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Silly arguments Posted by: PaulC
High school chem
Posted by: q. on Oct 9, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I missing something in defining "clean"?
I learned in HS chem :
CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O
While this may be "clean" it still produces CO2!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a relief- I thought I was losing my mind
Posted by: thistleblower on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His stupid ad made no sense at all to me until now. It's all "wind energy, wind energy" and at the very end you hear a blip about "natural gas." WTF? Why did he even bother putting it in there if the thing is a deception?

Tying it in with the debates is brilliant- makes his greed sound like some kind of "energy plan" for the country. So Rovian! Is this the future the republicans would have for us, self-interested pigs like Pickens dictating ACTUAL energy policy? ooo, I think I can hear some neocons ejaculating to the very idea.

Are these clowns for real? Do they really want to turn the US into something along the lines of an unstable third-world dictatorship, with only just enough GNP to support their fat asses? I mean, wouldn't they want a healthy slave force? What about roads and shit for their fat cars? Dumb asses! I guess this Pickens thing is really hitting a nerve with me. I just thought the right wing consisted of greedy morons. Now I actually hate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read and Listen More Closely
Posted by: websmith on Oct 9, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pickens does not want to convert old vehicles to natural gas. He only wants the new trucks to be run on natural gas. He does not say his plan is the fix. He says it is a bridge to allow us time to get other technology ready. He is envisioning mostly electric cars, but heavy duty trucks will not be run on electricity or other renewables for a long time. He wants solar and wind.

The problem he is facing is that there's and assumption that the government actually wants to stop sending our money out to foreign oil producing countries. If they did, this obvious problem would have been acted on sooner and they would not have almost killed renewable energy credits.

We have to make changes in government if we want this problem to be addressed.

http://ewebsmith.com/self/StandUp.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dockside
Posted by: rtmyth on Oct 9, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone Pickens is picking boons. One of the scheming wealthy always looking for a subsidy at taxpayer expense. .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about folks without garages
Posted by: chaoslegs on Oct 9, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think David Morris hits this concept right. However, like the digital divide I worry about the inequality that will exist for people without garages.

I have a house and a garage. But before that I lived in an old apartment building with no off street parking. Like David Morris, that apartment is in Minneapolis. In the winter, especially when there was too much snow they banned parking on one side of the street (so fire trucks could make it down the middle). During that time, I would often have to park 2-3 blocks away. How do I park in my plug in car then?

So the folks that have garages will be able to benefit for cheaper transportation, but the rest may be left out of this plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

T. Boone Stronger Than Ever
Posted by: andylew on Oct 9, 2008 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T. Boone is hardly done! In fact, today I got an email saying T. Boone had surpassed 1 million online supporters today. Moreover, he has held a meeting with Sarah Palin, and is in the proc