COMMENTS: 150
Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
You can't always get what you want, the Rolling Stones counseled. But if you try sometimes, you get what you need. Factor billions of dollars, questionable loyalties and a privatization rap sheet invested more in profit than people into the equation, and you usually can get both what you want and what you need. In the case of hyper-loaded oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.
In July, the oil magnate unveiled a well-publicized campaign, the Pickens Plan, which begins with an obvious premise: "America is addicted to foreign oil." Pickens' proposal to kick the habit is straightforward and simple: "Building new wind-generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years."
Sounds fair enough, especially given that Pickens and climate-crisis herald Al Gore have melded minds on the issue. But not hard enough, which is where the cracks in the Pickens Plan begin. "(Gore) asked if we could we join together and do something," Pickens explained to Bloomberg News. "I told him no, because global warming is on page two for me. Page one is foreign oil.''
That page seems to be recently written. As previously noted on either side of the red-blue divide, Pickens has funneled millions into 527s like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, helping derail John Kerry's bid for the White House in 2004. He simultaneously committed hundreds of thousands on top of that to the election and inauguration of both Bush administrations, both spearheaded by fossil fools whose kinship with foreign oil producers not only launched an invasion into an oil-rich but nevertheless sovereign nation, but also nearly tripled the price of oil in seven years and handed campaign contributors like Exxon the most bloated earnings in corporate history.
Sure, Pickens eventually decided to stop funding political campaigns, but that deathbed conversion happened the same July that the Pickens Plan ramped up its nearly $60 million media blitz.
It gets worse. Pickens is currently the head of BP Capital Management, a secretive hedge fund (aren't they all?) that has extensive connections to the magnate's hated "foreign oil" interests. The most glaring example from its investment portfolio is Halliburton, which was once run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is currently headquartered not in America but Dubai, and whose main business segments and subsidiaries involve oil exploration, construction, production and refining. And that's not mentioning its resume on rampant fraud and corruption, especially in Iraq but also elsewhere, which has so far cost American taxpayers billions.
But Halliburton isn't the only BP Cap holding that stinks. Pickens is also heavily invested in Schlumberger, the world's largest oil services corporation; nuclear and conventional energy powerhouse Shaw Group; the embattled ex-Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root and so on. For a very rich man who decries the influence foreign oil has on American life, Pickens sure hasn't put his money where his mouth is. He's put his money where the oil is.
"Even under the Pickens Plan," explains Treehugger's Matthew McDermott, "the U.S. will be importing a significant amount of oil. It's a step toward energy independence in that it expands renewable energy production, but I think framing this debate in terms of energy independence isn't the way to go. If you want to take a populist angle on this, pushing the very real benefits that wind power and renewables in general can have in local economies stands on much more solid ground."
If Pickens were a populist, that might be true. But he's not; he's a stone-cold capitalist whose taste for profit outweighs his desire for the common good. Pickens may have spent $3 billion on wind farms to generate enough electricity to take the load off natural gas, which is currently used to heat homes and more, but only so that it can be used for cars and trucks.
Those are the shells being moved around in this particular game. But shuffling responsibilities and resources will do nothing to forestall our dystopian environmental future, unless those resources burn clean. And what the Pickens Plan does not mention is that the oil tycoon has been deeply invested in natural gas for decades. If the entire American fleet were to switch over to natural gas, the air would possibly (but not probably) be around 30 percent cleaner in a decade, but Pickens would be richer in much higher percentages. And while the air would only stay cleaner for a short while, Pickens would stay loaded beyond the grave.
"Pickens has stated on numerous occasions that, of course, he's going to make money off the Pickens Plan," adds McDermott. "That's the nature of what he does and has done. But natural gas is probably better used to generate electricity than as a fuel source in cars. A better solution is electrically powered vehicles. While there are still technical issues, if our transportation fleet was all-electric, you could power it from whatever is the most regionally appropriate way of generating electricity cleanly and cheaply. As our ability to generate clean power improves, there would be theoretically no need to change the transportation fleet."
It's much simpler than that, argues Food and Water Watch's Wenonah Hauter. "Gas is not the solution for the future, no matter how the gas industry tries to portray it."
The biggest stain on the Pickens Plan is its architect's distasteful history of water privatization. According to Hauter, it is probably the biggest reason, more than all the aforementioned, not to trust him.
"With the water crisis looming in the future and his track record on selling water regardless of the environmental cost," she asserts, "Pickens will be viewed in the future as irresponsible. His background on promoting renewable energy can't erase his current disregard for the sustainable use of water. He recently supplemented his property holdings in Texas with 200,000 acres of land atop the Ogallala Aquifer. Under Texas law, this purchase entitles Mesa Water, Pickens' new company, to take more than 320,000 acre-feet of water, equivalent to more than 104 million gallons, from the property. The Ogallala is already severely depleted, and it's outrageous that he can stick a pipe in the ground and suck this water out without any environmental impact assessment."
Pickens has used all manner of stratagems to obtain rights to what is not a recreational, but an essential, resource for supporting life on the planet. He has spent more than $100 million to acquire water from outlying areas in Texas to sell to its metropolitan hubs, and although he hasn't yet found a buyer, it's only a matter of time. Blue gold is the new black gold, and it won't be long until the world is thirsty from one end to the other. Using his wind investment to fuel his water privatization has only made things worse.
"Pickens used the enormous wind farm erected on his property as a means to lobby for the right to pipe the Ogallala water to a major metropolitan center," Hauter adds. "He successfully passed a bill through the Texas Legislature to allow a water-supply district to transport alternative energy and water in a single corridor. Pickens also successfully loosened the legal definitions of a water district, allowing him to invoke the right of eminent domain so that he could build the pipeline through the property of several neighboring landowners. We should be concerned with these types of underhanded business dealings."
We should be concerned everywhere they occur, one might add, not just in Texas. That means putting aside the media buzz and fawning articles and seeing the Pickens Plan for what it is: a resource power grab for a post-oil oil tycoon. Natural gas will not save us from environmental catastrophe, nor will it wean us off foreign oil. Wind farms are a great start, but they deserve to be more than leadoff pitchers for natural gas, whose implementation into our fleet will do nothing to kick-start the massive emissions reductions we are going to need. Everything from oceanic dead zones and bizarre storms to desertification and societal collapse are on the burner. And we need to cool it down, rather than heat it up.
In the end, the Pickens Plan will not make that happen, no matter what kind of deathbed conversion T. Boone Pickens is experiencing.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone Pickens is trying his damnedest to fuel our transportation system with nat gas. He well knows that we will need trillions of dollars to convert cars and trucks and the fuel delivery system to natural gas.
Boone knows that if we go to an electrified transportation system that renewable energy will compete directly with his fossil fuel investments, especially natural gas.
Using nat gas for transportation is a dangerous and costly diversion from the real solution to our electric energy and transportation future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 18 Wheelers Plugged In?
Posted by: edgar1
» Perfect conservative "logic". Take a talking point to a ridiculous degree, and argue as if. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Switch the big rig cargo to rail . . .
Posted by: dustdevil
» Stick to playing world of warcraft
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Stick to playing world of warcraft
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: 18 Wheelers Plugged In? Yep ... Diesel Electric
Posted by: mmckinl
» Nope, Rail transport.
Posted by: plantsareneat
» Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list - Thank Conngress
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list
Posted by: plantsareneat
» Boone's snake oil...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: Boone's Boondoggle ...
Posted by: adp3d
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: edgar1
» Perfect conservative sense. Hey, Motown came from Detroit, so all cars should be SUVs
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» RE: How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: JonH
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: Jayzer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 21, 2008 2:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Time To Go Back To Kansas, Toto
Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Time; you seem to describe your own faith system very well
Posted by: Beck
» Beck, are you saying edgar1 is a "rightwing troll"? What is AlterNet coming to?
Posted by: HughScott
» Here's the difference, edgar1. Obama = bigger Afghan war, McCain = ARMAGEDDON!
Posted by: HughScott
» RE: Time To say Goodnight, Edgar
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: weenie
» Probably like you, ladybug, I'm hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
Posted by: HughScott
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» nancy pelosi is a major contributor
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» Who cares about Pelosi? You're smug and you don't know shit.
Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop.
Posted by: EJLima
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 21, 2008 2:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under ANY rational plan, including Pickens', oil will continue to play an important part in the US economy. Drilling here and continued imports will be needed. The US will find willing sellers of oil and the confirmation of recoverable reserves offshore will impact the market long before a single barrel hits the refineries, ignorant would be economists like Pelosi notwithstanding.
Invasion of foreign nations isn't needed to persuade producers to put product on the market. Sadaam Hussein was a businessman, and his large oil reserves could have been developed with US, French and Russian help without the bipartisan-supported invasion.
And oil prices as a result of all-out Iraqi production would have been lower.
A balanced, realistic energy program is needed, including drilling offshore to open up US reserves that are at least the recoverable size of Venezuela's, if not more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So we'll drill here, Exxon will sell it to China and Japan, so we'll need more imports?
Posted by: Beck
» Another kind of balance that is needed
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: Balance Needed, As Is Oil For A Significantly Longer Time
Posted by: JacklynD
» Misperceptions about offshore drilling
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: offshore oil drilling on a swift boat
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Aug 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can bet on it!
Big Oil is pumping Millions into McPain's Camp-pain.
The FAUX MEDIA and Corpirate internet shills are
Rovien Poster Children.
Endless Relentless Propaganda.
It is turning BLACK!
The worm turns ugly again.
When will these old FARTS/Fossils retire to their Mansions and leave us alone?
In their GREED driven LIMOS!
The Corpirate Plague continues.
Same A-s holes!
Same channel.
All for ME and NONE for YOU!
Except the Bills of course.
Millions of Millions up in smoke.
No Health Care ,
No Elderly care, Jobs or Houses.
But!
We got WAR:
Mercenaries, Spies, Lies, Snooks, Crooks, Treason, Cowards, Hypocrites, Shills, Pills and various other
Losers.
The money leader owns the temple.
Bend over Father:
Bless you!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:Lighten up, amigo!
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on Aug 21, 2008 3:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, Pickens is an oil magnate. Whatever. Maybe he feels guilty about what he did? Ok.
That's all there is to it. Really. The dude's hands are washed every time SUV discounts are shown on TV and when suckers buy them up.
Who has a TV? Who watches mainstream media? The sucker does both. That really is all there is to it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bitsfick on Aug 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The wind part is true. You are right.
Posted by: Beck
» Then why didn't he fight Washington for failing to approve of tax breaks on wind energy technology?
Posted by: maxpayne
» If it needs to be Subsided
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Subsided: I dunnot tink it means what you think it means..
Posted by: lexicon
» RE: you are way over the top
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: you are way over the top
Posted by: chobiewan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Aug 21, 2008 4:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That having been said, in corporate-owned America, unholy alliances are sometimes the only way progressives can get anything done. So if we want the minimum wage raised, for example, we've got to attach a rider to a bill funding the Iraq War.
So what I'm saying is that we shake Pickins slimy hand and see if we can at least get wind power deployed on a wide scale. It's not the ultimate answer, but whatever bone the corporatists can be persuaded to throw to us, it's the best we can hope for. That's how far down the toilet America has gone.
Who knows, maybe as Pickins becomes even older and more demented, we can get him on board for solar, electric cars, and improved rail service. One can always hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Deathbed Conversion
Posted by: Qilpole
» RE: Deathbed Conversion
Posted by: orwellturns
» Neither...nor...
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: Oh, please...
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Aug 21, 2008 4:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would be transformative would be to :
1).produce abundant and cheap electricity with a revised electrical grid that would allow the efficient transport of that electricity from where generated to where needed, and require that the materials and manufactured be American sources...steel and wind turbines. That would generate jobs and a revitilized manufacturing base that employs many with good pay.
2). use existing infastructure to convert national freight and mass transit to electrical based transportation.
3). require the auto manufacturers to provide fully ( low end) plug in electrical vehicles for personal transportation and regional freight, if they are going to be allowed to continue to sell gasoline based cars.( Ev's have been viable since the '70's.)
4). Same thing with furnaces that heat water to provide home heating.. require electrical based furnaces for heating water...that would allow simple and efficient conversion to electricity for heating purposes in the northeast and midwest where heating fuel is used.
Just as we used to undertake public works in the national interest, if we used renewable energy sources to produce abundant electricity as well as converted to electricity as the source of heating and transportation we would:
- eliminate dependence on oil imports
- eliminate trade deficits
- revitilize our manufacturing base and generate new industries
- produce abundant jobs required to manufacture, engineer, deploy, and maintain this system
What we don't need is:
- nuclear power. Pools of radioactive waste still remain.
- replacement of dependance on oil with dependence on natural gas. That perpetuates the 'hand on the spigot' mechanism that allows a few to control the many. Wind turbines deconstruct that control mechanism and decentralize energy production.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about Makeup?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: What about Makeup? Do all conservatives have ADD?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: fully electric
Posted by: Carol Burns
» RE: fully electric
Posted by: lclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pinnacle on Aug 21, 2008 5:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly we will come up with alternatives to using natural gas to fuel automobiles. What? I don't know. We just got started --- about 30 years late. Anyhow there will always be a use for all the oil that we and anybody else can produce so who gives a damn if Pickens makes some more money. The point is that he is out front shouting for this nation to do something. That's called leadership and it's what the President and other politicians should be doing. Instead of questioning the man's motive the author of this article should be cheering the fact that he's doing something to get us off our ignorant rear ends!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on Aug 21, 2008 5:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnchase34 on Aug 21, 2008 5:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to see some thoughtful alternatives to get out of this fossil fuel hole we -- yes, all of us -- have dug ourselves into.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» there are plenty of articles right here with solutions, and this article was about Pickens
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: peaceworker
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: Marshalldoc
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either that or Big Eddy has a piece of this pie.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Someone NEEDS to get this article to Ed Schultz
Posted by: Phred42
» Ed Schuitz sucks up to the corn lobby
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Aug 21, 2008 5:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's yet another phrase that's in the common usage and even liberals have bought into. An addiction is an addiction. The location of the source isn't important, especially as any new oil extracted here will probably be sold overseas, despite McCain and trolls acting as though it's the only solution to our problem.
I guess if the addicts are running low on our fixes, a new supply needs to be found. But the addicts are still addicts. Maybe the pushers here seem easier to deal with? They're no more honest, we should acknowledge.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truth About The Pickens Plan
video
Trading one Monopoly for another is NOT an answer. It's time to DECENTRALIZE source
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Once a Monopolist, Always a Monopolist
Posted by: FoonTheElder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 21, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other countries they look for, and do business with, good corporate citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe honest business dealings are vital to avoiding global warming
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 21, 2008 5:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JM
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 21, 2008 6:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 21, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, who knows what they will or will not put in the water supply? Will they get cheap and dump who knows what in the water supply, getting people sick?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One or the Other
Posted by: pdxjoe
» It's a matter of scale.
Posted by: JakobFabian01
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZenQuixote on Aug 21, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
screw that guy, and anyone that looks like him!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: don't worry...It's Chinatown!
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 6:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» NAS concluded the price of recycling what's meant for Yucca mountain to be $50 to $100 BILLION
Posted by: Beck
» RE: There is no such thing as nuclear recycling
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astockton on Aug 21, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pickens' Politics
Posted by: Carol Burns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 21, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans need to wake up to reality. We are standing on the threshold of not just an economic collapse but an environmental catastrophe of our own making! We can not drill our way out, nor can we keep putting off the inevitable decisions that need to be made. Future generations will look back and scream what were they thinking!?
The experts agree that even if the oil companies started drilling offshore today, it would still take at least 10 years before any productive outflow would be achieved! We need to fund alternatives, and stop these robber barrons from profiteering at the expense of the common good!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willd4change on Aug 21, 2008 7:13 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nothing is right. Texas at the moment can't deliver the large amount of wind power generated
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 7:15 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.
Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas than
any other source, includinh hydro, solar and wind.
Page 15: The Sierra Club used to favor nuclear power over hydro
but switched for political reasons.
Page 17: Coal kills 24000 Americans and 400000 Chinese every
year. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans total. Hydro has
killed 1000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Chinese.
I'm on page 25.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nuclear plants in Michigan currently store 1600 tons of waste along Great Lakes shores
Posted by: Beck
» Yeah, let's just SLOP up all that nuclear, right?
Posted by: jwverez
» Wrong on every count
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: waynep on Aug 21, 2008 8:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 21, 2008 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can see a biography on Britney or some obscure poet, but I never see any exposes on these people who actually cause ripple effects in to our lives.
New legislation..to be called News, you must have investigative reports, tell ALL the facts and never intertwine op ed during it. Have 'Warning' just like rated shows- "Warning this show contains Only opinions of the guest per their analysis, bias is graphic"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who didn't smell that Corp stench?
Posted by: Carol Burns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Better Pickens than Bechtel. It's not as if the gov't is going to start funding huge clean energy projects... Where is the $ gonna come from if not from billionaire oil folks?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 21, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My personal favorite is the Turby system from Norway. You can check them out at;
www.turby.nl
They are designed for inner city dwellings too.
We can kick oil to the curb with wind energy we just have to not be huckstered into large costly systems when we can do more with a little applied thinking.
But then again billionaires are'nt that smart,they just know how to get money,that's a craft. Smart would have been to design their industries to be environmentally inret in the first place so we would'nt be here now.
Write- In Jeffrey7 for Prez '08
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tbone on Aug 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing to add to the Pickens Bash...who do you think owns all of the prime "wind" land??? Not only will he make money from his hedge funds who are tied into the engineering firms, he will charge for the use of the land, then he will pilfer any resources under the dirt...
Like in Texas, he will use the facade of installing wind turbines (THEY NEED ROADS TO GET THE CRANES TO THE SITE!) to get at any other resources...oil, gas, water. And it looks like he has found ways around the environmental road blocks that protect all of us.
This man is absolute greed, pure and simple.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Aug 21, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 21, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NotNeoCon on Aug 21, 2008 9:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, more despicable than anything else is that he was a major player in getting the privileged idiot in the White House elected - twice, to say nothing of the idiot's father who gave us Dick Cheney to look after Junior Dumb Ass.
I have no respect for T. Boone regardless of his million Billions!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 21, 2008 9:41 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's not to say that we should not invest in discovering and implementing alternative methods of energy, that's just to say that those who think that Americans buying electric cars, bicycles, or massively investing in commuter rail by selling more of America to China (and I do bike to work every day and support expansion of commuter rail, btw) will solve the new satan of gobal worming are small-world thinkers. Doing so simply replaces where that same barrel of oil that you didn't use is burned, probably more cheaply, and almost assuredly with fewer emissions restrictions. That feeling of superiority that it wasn't your country that caused the oceans to acidify amounts to an ethics debate among dead folks, something also known as "irrelevant".
So, that's why American energy policy should be centered around popping the foreign oil tit our of lady liberty's mouth--do what you can, where you can--and why the environmentalism movement takes a back seat: they're still stuck thinking that the world revolves around them, and that America can fix everything. It's truly a Booshayan mindset--China is opening a new coal fired plant every week to ten days, and they are the fastest growing consumers of automobiles (internal combustion engine) in the world.
For further guidance on why subsidizing expansion of oil burning elsewhere in the world won't help the environment, see also: diffusion and physical and chemical properties of CO2.
As an aside:
...that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.
I've often wondered what folks who use this phrase actually do with their cake, besides eating it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't disagree with you, in that it certainly can make one feel better by down sizing.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Aug 21, 2008 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your wallet is about to take another hit.
The price of heating a home with natural gas is expected to be at least 20 percent higher this winter, according to federal predictions.
By Beccy Tanner | Wichita Eagle
Of course...imagine the cost to heat your home if the same gas becomes in demand for transportation as well. Prices will soar just as gas has...keeping the same people wealthy as always.
We need pure electric cars we can plug in at home. Electricity from wind, solar, nuclear etc. is still cheaper than fuels and we plug in at home.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rdodell on Aug 21, 2008 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
primary energy sources. Many are asking just WHY we continue to support our depencence on
soon-to-be exhausted, life threatening, costly fuels rather than dedicate ourselves and all of mankind to a supreme effort to develop truly renewable alternative energy sources. Such a global effort would likely carry a price tag in the billions of dollars...billions of dollars which might not make their way into the bulging pockets of the present "Energy Barons". Keeping
the public focused on fossil fuels is the distraction they are counting on to amass even greater fortunes in the short term. By now we should be aware this greedy bunch of thieves has absolutely no regard for the consequences to future generations.
In the 1940's this Nation committed to the most preposterous scientific undertaking in history.
"The Manhattan Project" cost American taxpayers
millions of dollars, but the united scientific community of the time developed an energy source previously considered impossible. In this age, nuclear may not be the answer to our energy problems. Is it possible however, that a modern world-wide Manhattan Project type scientific effort might result in revolutionary, acceptable methods of energy production? So long as we continue to buy into fossil fuel's fairy tales, they will scorn any such scientific researc and development funding.
Unfortunately, in efforts to keep their pockets full and their campaign chests bulging, our self-dedicated lawmakers will cooperate to the fullest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carol Burns on Aug 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aredee on Aug 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then I reached the conclusion that even a broken mechanical watch can be correct twice a day.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electron on Aug 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Aug 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anybody trust a billionaire capitalist to be concerned about "the people."
The bottom line with these f*cks, is always the bottom line...their bottom line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Aug 21, 2008 12:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives will lose all credibility if they reject a plan that would clean the environment because somebody profits from it.
By rejecting a good environmental plan because the wrong guy profits, the progressives will have become full-fledged Karl Roves. No longer will Democrats look at the merit of anything. They'll only look for a quick way to score cheap political points and, of course, cling to power.
I would hope that the left is more intelligent and less self-absorbed than that. Sure, there will always be an ugly thought of money going to Pickens after showing himself to be one of the world's biggest schoolyard bullies.
Get over it for the good of the planet. We do still put the good of the planet over our petty grievances, don't we? Do we swiftboat the original swiftboater?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Get Over Your (justifiable) Anger
Posted by: Quannah
» Oil could have been a great source if it hadn't been PRIVATIZED decades ago !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Aug 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so you don't like him, and that may be justified.
But what are the merits and demerits of his actual proposals?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ever heard of the term GREENWASHING?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kahoneez on Aug 21, 2008 2:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GIVE ME A BREAK ! It stinks any way you look at it !
It's obvious OIL companies will want to monopolize new energy , once oil begins to dry up and he will do the same thing , besides no one man should control water, that the general public relys on for LIFE .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ibemee on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can produce electricity almost for free--- BUT wind, sun & water isn't easy to monopolize, is it - and face the f-a-c-t that the moguls aren't interested in anything they can't monopolize. The Wind Farms are only to make you believe they're 'willing' to try alternatives....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtmyth on Aug 21, 2008 4:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayahka on Aug 21, 2008 4:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: permatopia on Aug 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak Natural Gas in Canada is happening now.
Pickens probably knows that natural gas for transportation is a fantasy. Most billionaires aren't stupid.
Pickens is probably hoping to build lots of wind turbines to provide electricity in a few years when the natural gas declines to the point where we need to save it for heating homes. Since most new power generators in the US run on natural gas, the decline of natural gas poses huge risks to the power grid.
Electric cars will be nice toys for wealthy people, but they're not going to replace our existing levels of overconsumption. No "alternative" technology is as energy dense as fossil fuels. No substitute is going to completely replace the current infrastructure. Carpooling would reduce oil consumption much faster than electric cars, but that's a social issue, not a techno-geek fantasy.
Geological limits to endless fossil energy are more important than politics and economics.
This message was typed using solar photovoltaic electricity, but transmitted to Alternet's computer via coal, natural gas, damns, nuclear reactors and some wind power. Energy literacy would be needed to think clearly about Peak Oil and Climate Change, but even the "alternative" media have failed to communicate the basic facts of energy depletion and the concept of "energy return on energy invested." This allows Obama and McCain to debate whether to open up oil drilling in areas that don't have much (or any) oil - both of them are lying about the energy crisis. At least Pickens is willing to state we are at Peak Oil now, but his wind turbines would not reduce the use of oil, since wind mills make electricity and almost no oil is used to run the power grid in the US. It is highly unlikely there will be any new increase in any use of natural gas, since the new drilling for natural gas is in more marginal fields that decline relatively quickly - so there isn't some enormous amount of domestic natural gas that could be quickly expanded.
Peak Oil means "less," which is a bummer, which is why the political system (of all flavors) ignores it. But ignoring it won't make it go away.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gradioc on Aug 21, 2008 5:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rancespergl on Aug 21, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He must be fought on every front NO MATTER what it is! He wants to give his money to a good cause-then let him give it unconditionally, no profit, no perks, no allowances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cruzecon on Aug 21, 2008 6:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will now have my eyes out about the water plans as I agree water is a RIGHT of SURVIVAL to ALL THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT not a private for profit corporation like American Oil is subject to under Trans-National Corporations who deny "native oil" to the natives who actually own it.
Still Picken's plan is more of a start on a large scale, than has ever been put forward before.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: asjogren on Aug 21, 2008 8:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike Oil, natural gas is renewable - to some extent. Animal farms, sewage treatment plants, and garbage dumps are easily exploited sources.
The main impediment to implementing natural gas cars currently is filling stations. And one law change could fix this quickly. Several auto manufacturers could relatively quickly import their existing natural gas vehicles - and if successful, manufacture them here.
I do not believe that natural gas vehicles will be the total solution, but they can buy time for other alternatives and technology development. I think plug-in hybrid technology to be more promising.
Let us not make the perfect the enemy of progress. Are some of Mr. Pickens ideas good? Yes. Is his specific proposal good? Probably not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Intellect on Aug 21, 2008 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind power is part of the solution. So are all other sources of clean energy - natural gas included.
Pickens' motive doesn't really matter.
Here is what a town using wind power can do:
http://link.brightcove.com/services
/link/bcpid1640183817/bctid1726829274
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 10:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
companies push your buttons and pull your chain, just like George
W. Bush, Adolph Hitler, Senator McCarthy and others. MRI
used to be called NMR. The name was changed to get patients
into the scanner. Most Americans are paranoid of terrorists and
all things nuclear. If the "human" brain had been designed by a
competent god, the coal industry would not have a $100 Billion
per year cash flow and George W. Bush would never have had a
chance of being elected once. We all know that we have to
convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear worldwide by 2015,
but it won't happen because the average American has an
irrational fear of all things nuclear. To solve the global warming
problem, the whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health
professional. We have enough time and technology. It is only
mental health and education that are lacking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Paranoid about nuclear?
Posted by: lclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
year for each 1000 Megawatts generated for one year. Nuclear plants put ZERO
CO2 into the air. The CO2 cost of building coal vs. nuclear is the same and
negligible. The CO2 cost of mining and transporting coal is large and not
included in the 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. The mining and transportation
cost of nuclear fuel is zero since Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be
reprocessed and put back into reactors. Each 1000 Megawatts of nuclear power
needs so little uranium that you could easily carry an equal weight in a suitcase.
Burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal makes 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. As I
have pointed out many times, burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal puts enough
U235 into the air and cinders to fuel a nuclear plant, or enough uranium +
thorium to fuel hundreds of nuclear plants if breeding is allowed. There is no
way to get there from here without nuclear power, like it or not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
asked me, "But what about nuclear waste? Will it not poison the
whole biosphere and persist for millions of years?"" I knew this
to be a nightmare fantasy wholly without substance in the real
world. I also knew that the natural world would welcome nuclear
waste as the perfect guardian against greedy developers, and
whatever slight harm it might represent was a small price to pay.
One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by
radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true
of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites in the Pacific,
and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons
plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not
perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may
cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of
people and their pets. It is easy to forget that now we are so
numerous, almost anything extra we do in the way of farming,
forestry and home building is harmful to wildlife and Gaia. The
preference of wildlife for nuclear waste sites suggests that the best
sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in
need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry
farmers and developers."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: progressivevoice on Aug 22, 2008 12:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my conservative friends ask me about what I think about offshore drilling, I just love to say:
"You know, even the most conservative oil man, T Boone Pickens who was a big funder of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' says that we can't drill our way out of this -- that continuing to rely on oil is a huge national security problem and that we have to move quickly to get off of oil and onto alternatives for the good of the country"
Then I say, "His plan may or may not be the best plan, but even this highly conservative oil man understands the problem that America must innovate and become energy self sufficient for the good of the country.'
Pickens provides a great opportunity to get conservatives to rethink their position that drilling is the answer to $4.00 gsoline because:
1. The messenger (Pickens) is one of their own -- a died in the wool conservative and therefore a patriot (at least from their point of view)
2. He is an oil man and must know the state of the oil reserves and energy demand.
If a Liberal said that we can't drill our way out of this, my conservative friends would laugh and make derogatory comments about tree huggers.
When one of their own (Pickens) is the messenger, they kind of have to listen and think about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega
fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8
Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee
Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Right! So get rid of coal plants AND nuclear plants, then you eliminate BOTH sources!
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kurtisle on Aug 25, 2008 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: A Week In The Life of A Redhead on Aug 25, 2008 11:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am thinking Plato was refering to Mr. T.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 21, 2008 1:47 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone Pickens is trying his damnedest to fuel our transportation system with nat gas. He well knows that we will need trillions of dollars to convert cars and trucks and the fuel delivery system to natural gas.
Boone knows that if we go to an electrified transportation system that renewable energy will compete directly with his fossil fuel investments, especially natural gas.
Using nat gas for transportation is a dangerous and costly diversion from the real solution to our electric energy and transportation future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» 18 Wheelers Plugged In?
Posted by: edgar1
» Perfect conservative "logic". Take a talking point to a ridiculous degree, and argue as if. . .
Posted by: Beck
» Switch the big rig cargo to rail . . .
Posted by: dustdevil
» Stick to playing world of warcraft
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Stick to playing world of warcraft
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: 18 Wheelers Plugged In? Yep ... Diesel Electric
Posted by: mmckinl
» Nope, Rail transport.
Posted by: plantsareneat
» Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list - Thank Conngress
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar panel company here has a two-year waiting list
Posted by: plantsareneat
» Boone's snake oil...
Posted by: Wells
» RE: Boone's Boondoggle ...
Posted by: adp3d
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: edgar1
» Perfect conservative sense. Hey, Motown came from Detroit, so all cars should be SUVs
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: paulmagillsmith
» RE: How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: Natasha_W
» RE: How many Dixie Chicks records stomped to dust by Texans???
Posted by: JonH
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas
Posted by: Jayzer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 21, 2008 2:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Time To Go Back To Kansas, Toto
Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Time; you seem to describe your own faith system very well
Posted by: Beck
» Beck, are you saying edgar1 is a "rightwing troll"? What is AlterNet coming to?
Posted by: HughScott
» Here's the difference, edgar1. Obama = bigger Afghan war, McCain = ARMAGEDDON!
Posted by: HughScott
» RE: Time To say Goodnight, Edgar
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: weenie
» Probably like you, ladybug, I'm hoping for the best and expecting the worst.
Posted by: HughScott
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop. sickofsleaze
Posted by: BigElectricCat
» nancy pelosi is a major contributor
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» Who cares about Pelosi? You're smug and you don't know shit.
Posted by: rancespergl
» RE: Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop.
Posted by: EJLima
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 21, 2008 2:39 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under ANY rational plan, including Pickens', oil will continue to play an important part in the US economy. Drilling here and continued imports will be needed. The US will find willing sellers of oil and the confirmation of recoverable reserves offshore will impact the market long before a single barrel hits the refineries, ignorant would be economists like Pelosi notwithstanding.
Invasion of foreign nations isn't needed to persuade producers to put product on the market. Sadaam Hussein was a businessman, and his large oil reserves could have been developed with US, French and Russian help without the bipartisan-supported invasion.
And oil prices as a result of all-out Iraqi production would have been lower.
A balanced, realistic energy program is needed, including drilling offshore to open up US reserves that are at least the recoverable size of Venezuela's, if not more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So we'll drill here, Exxon will sell it to China and Japan, so we'll need more imports?
Posted by: Beck
» Another kind of balance that is needed
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: Balance Needed, As Is Oil For A Significantly Longer Time
Posted by: JacklynD
» Misperceptions about offshore drilling
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: offshore oil drilling on a swift boat
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: williameon on Aug 21, 2008 3:04 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can bet on it!
Big Oil is pumping Millions into McPain's Camp-pain.
The FAUX MEDIA and Corpirate internet shills are
Rovien Poster Children.
Endless Relentless Propaganda.
It is turning BLACK!
The worm turns ugly again.
When will these old FARTS/Fossils retire to their Mansions and leave us alone?
In their GREED driven LIMOS!
The Corpirate Plague continues.
Same A-s holes!
Same channel.
All for ME and NONE for YOU!
Except the Bills of course.
Millions of Millions up in smoke.
No Health Care ,
No Elderly care, Jobs or Houses.
But!
We got WAR:
Mercenaries, Spies, Lies, Snooks, Crooks, Treason, Cowards, Hypocrites, Shills, Pills and various other
Losers.
The money leader owns the temple.
Bend over Father:
Bless you!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:Lighten up, amigo!
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rolomax on Aug 21, 2008 3:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure, Pickens is an oil magnate. Whatever. Maybe he feels guilty about what he did? Ok.
That's all there is to it. Really. The dude's hands are washed every time SUV discounts are shown on TV and when suckers buy them up.
Who has a TV? Who watches mainstream media? The sucker does both. That really is all there is to it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bitsfick on Aug 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 4:33 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The wind part is true. You are right.
Posted by: Beck
» Then why didn't he fight Washington for failing to approve of tax breaks on wind energy technology?
Posted by: maxpayne
» If it needs to be Subsided
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: Subsided: I dunnot tink it means what you think it means..
Posted by: lexicon
» RE: you are way over the top
Posted by: Quannah
» RE: you are way over the top
Posted by: chobiewan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ozonehole on Aug 21, 2008 4:52 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That having been said, in corporate-owned America, unholy alliances are sometimes the only way progressives can get anything done. So if we want the minimum wage raised, for example, we've got to attach a rider to a bill funding the Iraq War.
So what I'm saying is that we shake Pickins slimy hand and see if we can at least get wind power deployed on a wide scale. It's not the ultimate answer, but whatever bone the corporatists can be persuaded to throw to us, it's the best we can hope for. That's how far down the toilet America has gone.
Who knows, maybe as Pickins becomes even older and more demented, we can get him on board for solar, electric cars, and improved rail service. One can always hope.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Deathbed Conversion
Posted by: Qilpole
» RE: Deathbed Conversion
Posted by: orwellturns
» Neither...nor...
Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: Oh, please...
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lclark on Aug 21, 2008 4:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would be transformative would be to :
1).produce abundant and cheap electricity with a revised electrical grid that would allow the efficient transport of that electricity from where generated to where needed, and require that the materials and manufactured be American sources...steel and wind turbines. That would generate jobs and a revitilized manufacturing base that employs many with good pay.
2). use existing infastructure to convert national freight and mass transit to electrical based transportation.
3). require the auto manufacturers to provide fully ( low end) plug in electrical vehicles for personal transportation and regional freight, if they are going to be allowed to continue to sell gasoline based cars.( Ev's have been viable since the '70's.)
4). Same thing with furnaces that heat water to provide home heating.. require electrical based furnaces for heating water...that would allow simple and efficient conversion to electricity for heating purposes in the northeast and midwest where heating fuel is used.
Just as we used to undertake public works in the national interest, if we used renewable energy sources to produce abundant electricity as well as converted to electricity as the source of heating and transportation we would:
- eliminate dependence on oil imports
- eliminate trade deficits
- revitilize our manufacturing base and generate new industries
- produce abundant jobs required to manufacture, engineer, deploy, and maintain this system
What we don't need is:
- nuclear power. Pools of radioactive waste still remain.
- replacement of dependance on oil with dependence on natural gas. That perpetuates the 'hand on the spigot' mechanism that allows a few to control the many. Wind turbines deconstruct that control mechanism and decentralize energy production.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» What about Makeup?
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: What about Makeup? Do all conservatives have ADD?
Posted by: Beck
» RE: fully electric
Posted by: Carol Burns
» RE: fully electric
Posted by: lclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pinnacle on Aug 21, 2008 5:01 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Certainly we will come up with alternatives to using natural gas to fuel automobiles. What? I don't know. We just got started --- about 30 years late. Anyhow there will always be a use for all the oil that we and anybody else can produce so who gives a damn if Pickens makes some more money. The point is that he is out front shouting for this nation to do something. That's called leadership and it's what the President and other politicians should be doing. Instead of questioning the man's motive the author of this article should be cheering the fact that he's doing something to get us off our ignorant rear ends!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solrev on Aug 21, 2008 5:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: johnchase34 on Aug 21, 2008 5:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to see some thoughtful alternatives to get out of this fossil fuel hole we -- yes, all of us -- have dug ourselves into.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» there are plenty of articles right here with solutions, and this article was about Pickens
Posted by: Beck
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: peaceworker
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: Marshalldoc
» RE: Former Republican
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Either that or Big Eddy has a piece of this pie.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Someone NEEDS to get this article to Ed Schultz
Posted by: Phred42
» Ed Schuitz sucks up to the corn lobby
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Aug 21, 2008 5:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's yet another phrase that's in the common usage and even liberals have bought into. An addiction is an addiction. The location of the source isn't important, especially as any new oil extracted here will probably be sold overseas, despite McCain and trolls acting as though it's the only solution to our problem.
I guess if the addicts are running low on our fixes, a new supply needs to be found. But the addicts are still addicts. Maybe the pushers here seem easier to deal with? They're no more honest, we should acknowledge.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truth About The Pickens Plan
video
Trading one Monopoly for another is NOT an answer. It's time to DECENTRALIZE source
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Once a Monopolist, Always a Monopolist
Posted by: FoonTheElder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 21, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In other countries they look for, and do business with, good corporate citizens.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Maybe honest business dealings are vital to avoiding global warming
Posted by: greenman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 21, 2008 5:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JM
Ultimate Anonymity
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 6:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 21, 2008 6:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 21, 2008 6:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Plus, who knows what they will or will not put in the water supply? Will they get cheap and dump who knows what in the water supply, getting people sick?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» One or the Other
Posted by: pdxjoe
» It's a matter of scale.
Posted by: JakobFabian01
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ZenQuixote on Aug 21, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
screw that guy, and anyone that looks like him!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: don't worry...It's Chinatown!
Posted by: BigElectricCat
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 6:51 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» NAS concluded the price of recycling what's meant for Yucca mountain to be $50 to $100 BILLION
Posted by: Beck
» RE: There is no such thing as nuclear recycling
Posted by: permatopia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astockton on Aug 21, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Pickens' Politics
Posted by: Carol Burns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 21, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans need to wake up to reality. We are standing on the threshold of not just an economic collapse but an environmental catastrophe of our own making! We can not drill our way out, nor can we keep putting off the inevitable decisions that need to be made. Future generations will look back and scream what were they thinking!?
The experts agree that even if the oil companies started drilling offshore today, it would still take at least 10 years before any productive outflow would be achieved! We need to fund alternatives, and stop these robber barrons from profiteering at the expense of the common good!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willd4change on Aug 21, 2008 7:13 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nothing is right. Texas at the moment can't deliver the large amount of wind power generated
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 7:15 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally a truthful book about nuclear power.
Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas than
any other source, includinh hydro, solar and wind.
Page 15: The Sierra Club used to favor nuclear power over hydro
but switched for political reasons.
Page 17: Coal kills 24000 Americans and 400000 Chinese every
year. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans total. Hydro has
killed 1000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Chinese.
I'm on page 25.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nuclear plants in Michigan currently store 1600 tons of waste along Great Lakes shores
Posted by: Beck
» Yeah, let's just SLOP up all that nuclear, right?
Posted by: jwverez
» Wrong on every count
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: waynep on Aug 21, 2008 8:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 21, 2008 8:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can see a biography on Britney or some obscure poet, but I never see any exposes on these people who actually cause ripple effects in to our lives.
New legislation..to be called News, you must have investigative reports, tell ALL the facts and never intertwine op ed during it. Have 'Warning' just like rated shows- "Warning this show contains Only opinions of the guest per their analysis, bias is graphic"
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who didn't smell that Corp stench?
Posted by: Carol Burns
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 21, 2008 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Better Pickens than Bechtel. It's not as if the gov't is going to start funding huge clean energy projects... Where is the $ gonna come from if not from billionaire oil folks?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 21, 2008 8:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My personal favorite is the Turby system from Norway. You can check them out at;
www.turby.nl
They are designed for inner city dwellings too.
We can kick oil to the curb with wind energy we just have to not be huckstered into large costly systems when we can do more with a little applied thinking.
But then again billionaires are'nt that smart,they just know how to get money,that's a craft. Smart would have been to design their industries to be environmentally inret in the first place so we would'nt be here now.
Write- In Jeffrey7 for Prez '08
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tbone on Aug 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing to add to the Pickens Bash...who do you think owns all of the prime "wind" land??? Not only will he make money from his hedge funds who are tied into the engineering firms, he will charge for the use of the land, then he will pilfer any resources under the dirt...
Like in Texas, he will use the facade of installing wind turbines (THEY NEED ROADS TO GET THE CRANES TO THE SITE!) to get at any other resources...oil, gas, water. And it looks like he has found ways around the environmental road blocks that protect all of us.
This man is absolute greed, pure and simple.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Aug 21, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 21, 2008 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NotNeoCon on Aug 21, 2008 9:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, more despicable than anything else is that he was a major player in getting the privileged idiot in the White House elected - twice, to say nothing of the idiot's father who gave us Dick Cheney to look after Junior Dumb Ass.
I have no respect for T. Boone regardless of his million Billions!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 21, 2008 9:41 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's not to say that we should not invest in discovering and implementing alternative methods of energy, that's just to say that those who think that Americans buying electric cars, bicycles, or massively investing in commuter rail by selling more of America to China (and I do bike to work every day and support expansion of commuter rail, btw) will solve the new satan of gobal worming are small-world thinkers. Doing so simply replaces where that same barrel of oil that you didn't use is burned, probably more cheaply, and almost assuredly with fewer emissions restrictions. That feeling of superiority that it wasn't your country that caused the oceans to acidify amounts to an ethics debate among dead folks, something also known as "irrelevant".
So, that's why American energy policy should be centered around popping the foreign oil tit our of lady liberty's mouth--do what you can, where you can--and why the environmentalism movement takes a back seat: they're still stuck thinking that the world revolves around them, and that America can fix everything. It's truly a Booshayan mindset--China is opening a new coal fired plant every week to ten days, and they are the fastest growing consumers of automobiles (internal combustion engine) in the world.
For further guidance on why subsidizing expansion of oil burning elsewhere in the world won't help the environment, see also: diffusion and physical and chemical properties of CO2.
As an aside:
...that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.
I've often wondered what folks who use this phrase actually do with their cake, besides eating it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't disagree with you, in that it certainly can make one feel better by down sizing.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reelectnoone on Aug 21, 2008 9:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your wallet is about to take another hit.
The price of heating a home with natural gas is expected to be at least 20 percent higher this winter, according to federal predictions.
By Beccy Tanner | Wichita Eagle
Of course...imagine the cost to heat your home if the same gas becomes in demand for transportation as well. Prices will soar just as gas has...keeping the same people wealthy as always.
We need pure electric cars we can plug in at home. Electricity from wind, solar, nuclear etc. is still cheaper than fuels and we plug in at home.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rdodell on Aug 21, 2008 9:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
primary energy sources. Many are asking just WHY we continue to support our depencence on
soon-to-be exhausted, life threatening, costly fuels rather than dedicate ourselves and all of mankind to a supreme effort to develop truly renewable alternative energy sources. Such a global effort would likely carry a price tag in the billions of dollars...billions of dollars which might not make their way into the bulging pockets of the present "Energy Barons". Keeping
the public focused on fossil fuels is the distraction they are counting on to amass even greater fortunes in the short term. By now we should be aware this greedy bunch of thieves has absolutely no regard for the consequences to future generations.
In the 1940's this Nation committed to the most preposterous scientific undertaking in history.
"The Manhattan Project" cost American taxpayers
millions of dollars, but the united scientific community of the time developed an energy source previously considered impossible. In this age, nuclear may not be the answer to our energy problems. Is it possible however, that a modern world-wide Manhattan Project type scientific effort might result in revolutionary, acceptable methods of energy production? So long as we continue to buy into fossil fuel's fairy tales, they will scorn any such scientific researc and development funding.
Unfortunately, in efforts to keep their pockets full and their campaign chests bulging, our self-dedicated lawmakers will cooperate to the fullest.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Carol Burns on Aug 21, 2008 10:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aredee on Aug 21, 2008 10:44 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then I reached the conclusion that even a broken mechanical watch can be correct twice a day.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: electron on Aug 21, 2008 10:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Aug 21, 2008 11:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anybody trust a billionaire capitalist to be concerned about "the people."
The bottom line with these f*cks, is always the bottom line...their bottom line.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lamar on Aug 21, 2008 12:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives will lose all credibility if they reject a plan that would clean the environment because somebody profits from it.
By rejecting a good environmental plan because the wrong guy profits, the progressives will have become full-fledged Karl Roves. No longer will Democrats look at the merit of anything. They'll only look for a quick way to score cheap political points and, of course, cling to power.
I would hope that the left is more intelligent and less self-absorbed than that. Sure, there will always be an ugly thought of money going to Pickens after showing himself to be one of the world's biggest schoolyard bullies.
Get over it for the good of the planet. We do still put the good of the planet over our petty grievances, don't we? Do we swiftboat the original swiftboater?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Get Over Your (justifiable) Anger
Posted by: Quannah
» Oil could have been a great source if it hadn't been PRIVATIZED decades ago !
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Aug 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so you don't like him, and that may be justified.
But what are the merits and demerits of his actual proposals?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ever heard of the term GREENWASHING?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kahoneez on Aug 21, 2008 2:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GIVE ME A BREAK ! It stinks any way you look at it !
It's obvious OIL companies will want to monopolize new energy , once oil begins to dry up and he will do the same thing , besides no one man should control water, that the general public relys on for LIFE .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ibemee on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can produce electricity almost for free--- BUT wind, sun & water isn't easy to monopolize, is it - and face the f-a-c-t that the moguls aren't interested in anything they can't monopolize. The Wind Farms are only to make you believe they're 'willing' to try alternatives....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtmyth on Aug 21, 2008 4:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayahka on Aug 21, 2008 4:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: permatopia on Aug 21, 2008 4:47 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak Natural Gas in Canada is happening now.
Pickens probably knows that natural gas for transportation is a fantasy. Most billionaires aren't stupid.
Pickens is probably hoping to build lots of wind turbines to provide electricity in a few years when the natural gas declines to the point where we need to save it for heating homes. Since most new power generators in the US run on natural gas, the decline of natural gas poses huge risks to the power grid.
Electric cars will be nice toys for wealthy people, but they're not going to replace our existing levels of overconsumption. No "alternative" technology is as energy dense as fossil fuels. No substitute is going to completely replace the current infrastructure. Carpooling would reduce oil consumption much faster than electric cars, but that's a social issue, not a techno-geek fantasy.
Geological limits to endless fossil energy are more important than politics and economics.
This message was typed using solar photovoltaic electricity, but transmitted to Alternet's computer via coal, natural gas, damns, nuclear reactors and some wind power. Energy literacy would be needed to think clearly about Peak Oil and Climate Change, but even the "alternative" media have failed to communicate the basic facts of energy depletion and the concept of "energy return on energy invested." This allows Obama and McCain to debate whether to open up oil drilling in areas that don't have much (or any) oil - both of them are lying about the energy crisis. At least Pickens is willing to state we are at Peak Oil now, but his wind turbines would not reduce the use of oil, since wind mills make electricity and almost no oil is used to run the power grid in the US. It is highly unlikely there will be any new increase in any use of natural gas, since the new drilling for natural gas is in more marginal fields that decline relatively quickly - so there isn't some enormous amount of domestic natural gas that could be quickly expanded.
Peak Oil means "less," which is a bummer, which is why the political system (of all flavors) ignores it. But ignoring it won't make it go away.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gradioc on Aug 21, 2008 5:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rancespergl on Aug 21, 2008 5:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He must be fought on every front NO MATTER what it is! He wants to give his money to a good cause-then let him give it unconditionally, no profit, no perks, no allowances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cruzecon on Aug 21, 2008 6:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will now have my eyes out about the water plans as I agree water is a RIGHT of SURVIVAL to ALL THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT not a private for profit corporation like American Oil is subject to under Trans-National Corporations who deny "native oil" to the natives who actually own it.
Still Picken's plan is more of a start on a large scale, than has ever been put forward before.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: asjogren on Aug 21, 2008 8:10 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unlike Oil, natural gas is renewable - to some extent. Animal farms, sewage treatment plants, and garbage dumps are easily exploited sources.
The main impediment to implementing natural gas cars currently is filling stations. And one law change could fix this quickly. Several auto manufacturers could relatively quickly import their existing natural gas vehicles - and if successful, manufacture them here.
I do not believe that natural gas vehicles will be the total solution, but they can buy time for other alternatives and technology development. I think plug-in hybrid technology to be more promising.
Let us not make the perfect the enemy of progress. Are some of Mr. Pickens ideas good? Yes. Is his specific proposal good? Probably not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Intellect on Aug 21, 2008 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind power is part of the solution. So are all other sources of clean energy - natural gas included.
Pickens' motive doesn't really matter.
Here is what a town using wind power can do:
http://link.brightcove.com/services
/link/bcpid1640183817/bctid1726829274
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 10:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
companies push your buttons and pull your chain, just like George
W. Bush, Adolph Hitler, Senator McCarthy and others. MRI
used to be called NMR. The name was changed to get patients
into the scanner. Most Americans are paranoid of terrorists and
all things nuclear. If the "human" brain had been designed by a
competent god, the coal industry would not have a $100 Billion
per year cash flow and George W. Bush would never have had a
chance of being elected once. We all know that we have to
convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear worldwide by 2015,
but it won't happen because the average American has an
irrational fear of all things nuclear. To solve the global warming
problem, the whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health
professional. We have enough time and technology. It is only
mental health and education that are lacking.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Paranoid about nuclear?
Posted by: lclark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:03 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
year for each 1000 Megawatts generated for one year. Nuclear plants put ZERO
CO2 into the air. The CO2 cost of building coal vs. nuclear is the same and
negligible. The CO2 cost of mining and transporting coal is large and not
included in the 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. The mining and transportation
cost of nuclear fuel is zero since Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be
reprocessed and put back into reactors. Each 1000 Megawatts of nuclear power
needs so little uranium that you could easily carry an equal weight in a suitcase.
Burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal makes 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. As I
have pointed out many times, burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal puts enough
U235 into the air and cinders to fuel a nuclear plant, or enough uranium +
thorium to fuel hundreds of nuclear plants if breeding is allowed. There is no
way to get there from here without nuclear power, like it or not.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
asked me, "But what about nuclear waste? Will it not poison the
whole biosphere and persist for millions of years?"" I knew this
to be a nightmare fantasy wholly without substance in the real
world. I also knew that the natural world would welcome nuclear
waste as the perfect guardian against greedy developers, and
whatever slight harm it might represent was a small price to pay.
One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by
radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true
of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites in the Pacific,
and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons
plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not
perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may
cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of
people and their pets. It is easy to forget that now we are so
numerous, almost anything extra we do in the way of farming,
forestry and home building is harmful to wildlife and Gaia. The
preference of wildlife for nuclear waste sites suggests that the best
sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in
need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry
farmers and developers."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: progressivevoice on Aug 22, 2008 12:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When my conservative friends ask me about what I think about offshore drilling, I just love to say:
"You know, even the most conservative oil man, T Boone Pickens who was a big funder of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' says that we can't drill our way out of this -- that continuing to rely on oil is a huge national security problem and that we have to move quickly to get off of oil and onto alternatives for the good of the country"
Then I say, "His plan may or may not be the best plan, but even this highly conservative oil man understands the problem that America must innovate and become energy self sufficient for the good of the country.'
Pickens provides a great opportunity to get conservatives to rethink their position that drilling is the answer to $4.00 gsoline because:
1. The messenger (Pickens) is one of their own -- a died in the wool conservative and therefore a patriot (at least from their point of view)
2. He is an oil man and must know the state of the oil reserves and energy demand.
If a Liberal said that we can't drill our way out of this, my conservative friends would laugh and make derogatory comments about tree huggers.
When one of their own (Pickens) is the messenger, they kind of have to listen and think about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega
fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8
Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee
Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Right! So get rid of coal plants AND nuclear plants, then you eliminate BOTH sources!
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kurtisle on Aug 25, 2008 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: A Week In The Life of A Redhead on Aug 25, 2008 11:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am thinking Plato was refering to Mr. T.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?
How Can We Talk About Transformational Change Without Losing Hope?




