mediapro

Open Letter to Boone Pickens

This nut case post is another example of Friedman-neo-con thinking. Believe in nothing than gets in the way of "free markets" and get out of the way so that they can do their work. Thirty years of this unfettered, simple-minded thinking has left us where we are today

Just watched a 2008 special last night on the National Geographic Channel showing the actual ocean water temperature measurements over the last decade and their effects on glaciers. Warmer sea waters intruding on the glacial shelf forms ponds within the glacier and this water seeps down to the bottom of the glacier. That forms an effect similar to grease on skids, increasing the speed of galcier creep by as much as 1"/day. The result is a prediction, based on current rates, of an 80% depletion of the Greenland ice sheet alone by 2020. If all glacier melt were accelerated at such a rate, we could expect a sea water rise of as much as 20 feet by the middle of this century.

Hope the poster doesn't own any land in Florida or Manhatten!

As for what's a theory, perhaps the poster needs a trip back to grammar school. A theory is a testable hypothesis (repeatable over time) demonstrating confidence of the theory over many years and many situations, such that it is a predictive model of expected results. This allows scientists to look a real world outcomes.

Though he didn't mention the alternative, as most of these nut cases seem to forget when they make such outlandish claims, "intelligent design theory" (it is neither a theory nor a very good name for an hypothesis) is a circular argument. Their claims amount to: "Look at the complexity of organisms (events, animals, nature in general). Evolution theory could never explain how these intricate mechanisms developed. Therefore, they must be a result of design by an unknown intelligence."

The problem with this apriori approach is that it is an untestable hypothesis (at best) because when something is "created" out of thin air, that's the best explanation possible. It cannot be tested, repeated, nor ever proven. Such a possibility only exists in the minds of the gullible and ignorant.

The same can be said of its economic equivalent, the Laffer Curve.


On Mar 18 01:37 PM yank wrote:

> Interesting in that now that we have had a global "cooling" since
> 1998 "global warming" has been replaced with the term "climate change".
> Al Gore at a recent California lecture was challenged by a scientist
> skeptical of the "climate change" fiasco. Sadly, Al declined to converse
> with the dubious scientist. Of course going unchallenged on a daily
> basis is the list of thousands of accomplished scientists from all
> over the world who very clearly have stated that "climate change"
> like evolution is an UNPROVEN THEORY and not fact. Spending billions
> of dollars that we don't have on solving an unproven problem sounds
> like the very definition of "insanity" to me.

Open Letter to Boone Pickens

What a nakedly obvious quip, Mr. Bird.!!!

Like a Japanese Koan you distilled the entire debate about the move to alternative energy into a visual poem.

Here we are reading a most informed author, a few followers, and people keenly interested in arranging the proverbial deck chairs. It is as if everyone and no one have an answer to how we remove our mouths from the oily tit or kiss our ass goodbye.

Your style is what this site needs more!






On Mar 18 04:57 PM nakedjaybird wrote:

> Dear god - please flood the earth again so we can replenish our oil,
> coal and gas natural (sic) resources. forgive us in how we mismanaged
> what you gave us the first time.
>
> earthman.

Open Letter to Boone Pickens

Here's the odd thing about your observations. GM currently successfully markets a NGV in Canada, but refuses to market that same vehicle here. My guess is that it's because there is no fueling infrastructure. Ask yourself why Canada can develop a readily available fueling station infrastructure in a geography that has many more roadway gaps and less population.


On Mar 17 11:15 AM AlexS wrote:

> So instead of getting your fuel from the Middle East (and the U.S.)
> and your Phill from Canada, you propose to get your fuel from Canada
> (and the U.S) and your Phill from China. I'm not sure I see the
> advantage. As you say, though, the EPA is certainly an impediment
> to getting all this done, including I suspect even allowing NGV from
> being imported into the U.S. And I'm not sure that a Phill per household
> is a very good investment. A couple thousand per household vs an
> installation cost of zero for a gasoline or diesel fueled vehicle.
> Maybe it would be better to convert that natural gas to gasoline
> and diesel and leave the infrastructure alone.

Open Letter to Boone Pickens

Thanks for posting these little-known subsidy facts. Since you left a "?" beside oil, please factor in the following when considering how generously we taxpayers currently subsidize the "free market" Captains of Industry:

Consider the following four giant effects on tax policy that those who only look at the income tax seem to conveniently forget:

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

The attempted movement away from an oil-based economy is long overdue. Eliminating these subsidies and replacing them with a carbon tax and offsets would be a dandy replacement for current outlays while returning the investment towards modernizing the electrical grid and smart energy technologies while contributing towards deficit reduction. Even an oil guy as puerile as T. Boone Pickens has attempted to wake up and smell the coffee.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?


On Mar 17 11:07 AM belseware wrote:

> GET REAL. "We need politicians who will craft legislation that removes
> the subsidies enjoyed by the oil and coal industries in order to
> level the playing field"
>
> FUEL Subsidy
> SOURCE per MWh
> Oil (?)
> Coal $0.44
> Natural Gas $0.25
> Nuclear $1.59
> Biomass $0.89
> Geothermal $0.92
> Hydro $0.67
> Landfill Gas $1.37
> SOLAR >>>$24.34<...
> WIND >>>$23.37<...
> Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
>
> OK, I agree promoting NGVs beats heck out of stuffing wind and solar
> down our throats.
>

NBC Refuses Pickens Plan Ad

While I applaud your can-do and hope eventually that we won't be talking about carbon-producing vehicles -- their are better future alternatives -- cos100 pointed out correctly that even the home delivery option requires two investments -- a nat gas storage capability and in-garage unit that costs an additional $1600 - $2000 AND takes the 16 hours for a re-fill. Honda and soon Toyota are forward-thinking companies that have stepped up to the plate, and they are to be applauded.

My point was that a nat gas conversion and delivery system depends on many variables before diffusion can extend down to the individual vehicle -- early adopters as yourselves aside. Pickens simply points out that the Port of Long Beach and now the Port of Los Angeles are two high-impact, immediate examples of those with the resources and desire to move ahead with conversion. Since trucking is the other carbon-belching major problem, that's the direction to place the initial emphasis.

NBC Refuses Pickens Plan Ad

I'll try to get this away from a political discussion, back to the intent of the article. Most posts have been posturing who's the best conservative/libertari... or liberal/moderate democrat.

"Clearlead" said:

Gore is correct that America needs to use its natural gas for power generation that can fuel electric cars that cause less pollution than using this fuel directly for transportation uses (just b/c Iran is doing it, doesn't make me think that it necessarily the way to go).

Though I'm suspicious of Pickens as a person, he is VERY clear about his intent for Nat Gas vehicles. Natural gas is the natural fuel for heavy duty moving equipment and trucks. His more modest approach is to divert the nat gas fuel away from electric production and initially into heavy duty equipment. That's where the 20% reduction in oil comes from.

Unless Detroit et.al. rush to remanufacture and we have thousands of new re-fueling stations -- neither very likely in the ten years envisioned by the plan -- this approach seems sound.

How You Can Invest in the Pickens Plan

This plan is a fascinating combination of existing technology.

While, I agree with the sentiments of "mertenfam" and "user 199792", I must respond to one comment by "Breadnight".

Pickens is very clear about the initial thrust of natural gas usage and vehicle conversion. If you read the full plan, he takes the Port of Long Beach model for converting heavy equipment and eventually the highway trucking system as the most reasonable, short-term (10 year) solution to converting electricity generation from natural gas and shifting that supply to the heavy equipment users. Unless there is a rush by auto manufacturers or passenger engine re-tooling and scads of refueling stations (neither very likely within this frame), there should be a modest uptick in nat gas demand, but the shift in power generation usage to wind would more than likely offset extremes in the gas market.