Comments on: Texas Oilman: Clear Path For Wind Power

T. Boone Pickens Makes Request Of Congress To Boost Use Of Wind, Natural Gas

[libh8er]

They''''re both liars!
Posted by legacyABQ at 10:36 AM : Jul 23, 2008

You''re right...they are. Once these people (who could make the kind of $$$ in the private sector that they make in Washington) get a taste of the power and perks, they can''t give it up.

They''ll do and say whatever it takes to hold on to it and to acquire more of it! And when the majority gets elected based on what they promise to give back to the people in the form of more gov''t giveaways to those who elected them rather than what''s best for the country, well....that''s the end of our democracy.

And it''s coming. In fact, it''s almost here.

[andylance1]

There is plenty of clean natural gas lying under the sea floor of the Gulf of Mexico which Pelosi''s Congress does not want you to have.

About 24.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas were estimated to exist as "remaining proved reserves" in 928 proved active fields of the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf, As of December 31, 2002.

T - Bone - Pickens has another trillion idea: "Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas Panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20 percent of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.%u201D

[bobnjersey]

[Go alternative but do not let this clown profit one iota from it. How dare he try and make me and my family into a bunch of serfs! How dare he!!!!]
[Posted by whitemale08 at 10:50 AM : Jul 23, 2008]

can''t blame him for trying. it''s up to others to recognize his vested interest, weigh it against that of the population at large, and decide if it''s in everyone''s interest ... including his.

he should be able to profit from it in a reasonable way if he promotes the idea and effects it''s implementation (w/ resources and money).

[balto_babs]

...SHRUB wouold have found a way to occupy it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by six-six-seis at 10:52 AM : Jul

Hey ''six-six-seis'' Your ignorance is showing !!

Here are the stats on our top 6 sources in thousands of barrels PER DAY for May 2008 only--

CANADA 1,840
SAUDI ARABIA 1,579
MEXICO 1,116
VENEZUELA 1,030
NIGERIA 851
IRAQ 583

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Take note that only 2 of these sources are from the Middle East. Only 1 source is from Africa. Venezuela is CITGO.

[balto_babs]

Running vehicles on CNG (compressed natural gas) is actually cleaner than the current hybrids. Honda Civic GX model runs on CNG, but supporting infrastructure only exists in NY & CA.

[six-six-seis]

We import MOST of our oil from CANADA, not the middle east. Duh !!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by balto_babs ....

LOL.....

thats because thats where oil from Iran, and other nations, get washed, repackaged and resold.
if Canada indeed had that much oil, SHRUB wouold have found a way to occupy it.

[wdrussell1]

You want a speed-up on renewable energy?

Give the energy companies the rights to own the wind and the sun.
They will be all in favor of anything that lines their pockets.

[whitemale08]

Booones Pickes, Pickens Boooones, whatever the hell the name of this guy is, he needs to be locked up.

He''s trying desparatly to be one of these oligarchs that''s going to run the world through hedge funds.

Hedge funds should be illegal, they add no production to the economy, they use collaterized debt from mortgages to do their "buyouts".

What the hell is a "buy out" anyways and what''s a "buyout" industry. It''s stupid folks.

Go alternative but do not let this clown profit one iota from it. How dare he try and make me and my family into a bunch of serfs!

How dare he!!!!

[balto_babs]

We import MOST of our oil from CANADA, not the middle east. Duh !!

[taotxzen]

Drilling Ourselves Deep In a Hole

By Firmin DeBrabander

21/07/08 "ICH" -- - At one point in his masterful People%u2019s History of the United States, Howard Zinn reflects upon the unspeakable carnage wrought by the Conquistadors in South and Central America, all in the pursuit of gold, and wonders at how those obscene riches sustained imperial greatness%u2026 for barely a hundred years. All that bloodletting, enslavement, massacres -- genocide in places -- for a temporary wealth that quickly vanished on the stage of history.

It reminds me of our current oil craze: in one century we have plundered billions of years of stored hydrocarbons, and what do we have to show for it? Fleeting prosperity%u2014one that is hardly shared by all%u2014a highly volatile Middle East, and awesome ecological devastation that will require centuries of recovery.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

And now, as the age of oil finally signals its inevitable demise, our president and his allies in Washington announce that their grand response is %u2026 to drill for more oil. Congress and the president are of course reacting to public hysteria from rising prices at the pump. But expanding domestic drilling is an inane proposal. Actually, it is reckless and tragic.

Until this week, Washington has largely chosen to ignore the real reason behind the dramatic rise in oil prices. Congress ripped Wall Street speculators for driving up the price of a barrel, but economists have long agreed that the major culprit is increasing demand in China, India and the developing world. Congress now appears to have realized that global demand is the problem; however, this is a problem that cannot be drilled away. Any increase in global oil supply is destined to be quickly outpaced by skyrocketing energy demands.

(cont)

[taotxzen]

(cont)

Domestic drilling can only diminish gas prices if that supply were guaranteed for domestic use alone. This appears to be the underlying assumption of the current congressional push for expanded domestic drilling. And it is laughable. Contracts for drilling in Alaska and off our coasts will likely go to US-based firms, like Exxon or Conoco, which are also transnational corporations, and thus, in no way compelled to restrict retail to the US market. If expanded domestic drilling succeeds in lowering our gas prices -- even marginally -- five years from now, while gas prices abroad remain robust, we all know well where Exxon will shop its Alaskan crude.

This call to expand domestic drilling is again the temptation to delay the inevitable: the transition to renewable energy and sustainable lifestyles. Oil is ecologically condemned, but also economically condemned, for it is a limited resource: its inevitable destiny is to become more expensive%u2014and then run out. Accordingly, those nations that best prepare themselves for a post-petroleum world will be best positioned economically for the future.

[legacyabq]

why cant people stop blaming each others'' partys? its power players on both sides, and corporate lobbyists who run the govt, not partys. lol Vote dem! yeah right. Vote repub! yeah right. They''re both liars!

[libh8er]

Posted by Galileo1234 at 09:58 AM : Jul 23, 2008

George Bush''s house in Crawford is geothermal. They also capture/treat and reuse waste water. They also use rain water for irrigation. Not bad for a country boy.

And he doesn''t even need to buy ''carbon credits'' from ALGore! LOL

[libh8er]

And this friend didn''''t even graduate high school. He dropped out, went to Germany and studied to be a Volkswagen mechanic! LMAO! Posted by RowdyWicca at 08:42 AM : Jul 23, 2008

It can work on a small scale. But on a large (city) type scale, it is horribly inefficient. Not only that, but the utility company has to be able to generate X number of megawatts REGARDLESS of whether there is supplemental energy on the grid or not.

The utility company doesn''t care because they have to be ready to supply power to the town/city/hamlet whatever if the alternate source goes away.

So what are you saving? Nothing. If the town is willing to go dark, then I''d say you have a case.....short of that, WIND POWER is a lot of hot air. :)

[galileo1234]

Wind and ground based solar are feeder technologies, but they are intermittent. The sun sends to the earth 10,000 times the amount of energy being consumed. If you put collectors in geo orbit, you solve the problem. Satellite Solar Power (SSP) has been favorably reviewed by NASA, DOE, and DOD. It was invented in the US by Peter Glaser in 1968. The energy available at geo is enough to replace fossil fuels to supply baseload power. Solar energy is converted and beamed down to rectennas on the ground. From there it is sent out through the power grid. SSP does not inject waste heat, pollution, or radiation into the atmosphere. It is approaching a business case. The remaining hurdle is cheap launch to get people, tools, and electronics off the ground. Construction materials would come from the moon and possibly asteroids. Launch from these sources would be by electromagnetic devices, prototypes of which are already built and tested. Over a 50-year ramp, SSP can provide all the clean baseload power we need. By using materials at the top of earth''s gravity well, SSP can undersell coal and fission within a few years. Ultimately, the industry would be "owned" by people living in new cities in cis-lunar space. This is seen as the transformative opportunity of the program. Ships of exploration can be built from this infrastructure. SSP is the Apollo-like announcement we seek from the next President. It is the solution to our energy, security, and economic growth needs.

[docpeter-2009]

RE: Posted by perceptions5 at 09:39 AM : Jul 23, 2008
______________
While I agree that the enviros are holding much of this back. Many/most are the same that also say "go green", but are not willing to commit to that statement. Just look at the opposition in the NE where the govt. was ready to set up wind energy in the NE, but the Kennedy''s opposed it and all the plans and work went down the drain.

Why did the Kennedy''s oppose the turbines, because they were not asthetically appealing to the area. Please give America a break. Either we need to be pleasing to the eye of all or have cheap energy for all, it is evident that both won''t exist together. If they want energy in the NE then they should have to pay premium price to send it there.

It is way too costly to ship energy from the plains and deserts all around the country so the few can have beauty in the far reaches of the nation.

[craigh9]

We should do whatever it takes to become self reliant from an energy standpoint within the next 25 years. Then, and only then can we reconcern ourselves about environmental impacts. Nobody will give a *** about spotted owls or karner blue butterflies when they have no heat for their homes, no gas for their car, and no food because most of what''s grown is used to generate energy.

[perceptions5]

The DEMOCRAT PARTY continues to block US companies from developing our natural resources, especially oil.

The Democrat block it because their being "paid" to block it by one of the historical special interest groups, Environmentalists.

The Enviro''''s pay for their election campaigns every two years and in return for the "dirty influence money" the Democrat vote NO to "domestic development of our natural resources".

These liberal fascists that now control our Congress have no plans to bring relief to Americans, that would upset their "steady flow of money payments" from the environmentalists. Gas prices have almost doubled since the Democrats took over Congress...................................real sad and real true.

My fellow Americans don''''t HOPE for cheaper energy prices...............................

VOTE for cheaper energy prices...........................VOTE REPUBLICAN.!!

[drputt45]

Wind power is probably a good way to so. My question is, why are all the windmills constructed outside the US and shipped to Houston to haul to the TX panhandle? Can''t we build them here?