I think I have a more important question. Where were the Republicans during the Pickens event? Standing somewhere muttering "drill, baby, drill"?
My guess about certain Dems is that they believe getting attention for alternative energy is more important in the scheme of things -- like the life on our planet -- than making a fuss over the past. Priorities, priorities.
Most Rs, on the other hand, seem obsessed most with revenge, proving they're tough guys, you know, and the future of the planet be damned. Just give me money, that's what I want ....
The "Drill, baby, drill" chant completely turns my stomach. How do you all feel about it?
I don't really think it would serve the good of *anybody* to picket and protest Pickens' event. I think its enough to say "This is one of the main guys behind the disgusting attacks on a war vet with multiple decorations" just for the record, while at the same time agreeing with that renewable energy needs to be a priority now.
I think its very important to have a hard right profit motive guy pushing for renewables. On the one hand, it is probably true that he's looking for government handouts with which he will enrich himself (in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, land grants etc) but on the other hand, once both the left and the right are behind renewables, they're going to happen.
As long as the GOP can counter nuanced arguments like "we need to begin investing in renewable energy sources now so that they become economically feasible in the future" with idiocy like "drill baby drill" we're going to be held in check.
"Drill, baby, drill" is about as juvenile and puerile as a chant can get. Hence, it's popularity with what are now called "low information voters."
Ha ha! "Low information voters" got a grin out of me. Wow.
I have a sneaking feeling that Pickens has a *big* investment in natural gas and gasoline infrastructure (pipelines, filling stations, storage facilities, etc.). His plan requires a massive switchover of vehicles from gasoline to natural gas, preserving that sort of investment.
Meanwhile, his plan *also* more-or-less requires writing off the sunk costs of gas-powered electrical plants (many of which are owned or run by public utilities).
We would get approximately the same energy (and carbon) savings if we instead switched vehicles to electricity and just *added* the wind-power to the electricity grid, but I suppose an oilman like Pickens doesn't like the idea of filling stations going out of style.
To be fair Michael, the technology for practical natural gas cars is already well developed and in use whereas there isn't an electrical car that can go more than about 80 miles without recharging doesn't exist yet.
I believe Pickens owns the most natural gas filling stations in the nation already.
Also check out his scheme for privatizing water and getting it to Dallas and other cities using the same corridors he'd use for wind transmission that we would pay for:
http://www.localenergynews.org/n...pump-
water.html
Follow the links in the article too.
Dan,
"whereas there isn't an electrical car that can go more than about 80 miles without recharging"
Which is, what, over 90% of all car trips made in America?
If you need an occasional longer trip, rent a vehicle (same goes for occasionally needing the cargo space).
If your commute really is 40 miles each way, get a hybrid. And OK, sure, go ahead and make it a gas hybrid (though flex-fuel would be better in many cases).
In any event, we still wouldn't need the same amount of gas/gasoline infrastructure that Pickens has apparently invested in. So, if his plan was honest, it wouldn't require preserving this investment and junking the gas power plants that the public has invested in.
And please note that gas power plants are more efficient (carbon-emission-wise) that gas vehicles.
It's not as though he wouldn't still stand to make a shitload of money off of wind power. Just not an obscenely huge windfall profit off of gas infrastructure.
As far as I know Pickens has always been up front about wanting to make an obscene amount of money on this stuff.
While its true that an 80mile/charge car would cover 90% of all trips, I think it would be a particularly hard sell to get people to pony up $30-90K for a vehicle that can only handle 90% of their needs.
The Chevy Volt is currently under development but is (essentially) waiting for advances in battery technology to make it more feasible for regular people.
One of the big problems with elmininating/mitigating our reliance on petroleum products is going to be how people are going to recover from the sudden massive value loss in their existing vehicles. It certainly is true that 99% of cars already depreciate at an appalling rate but most people depend on being able to sell their old vehicle for 5-10K in order to be able to afford another one- without this I'm worried that even when electric cars are practical they'll be out of the reach of the majority of the population for several years.
My understanding of using NG for cars is that existing cars can be modified to use it. If not then NG cars will suffer from the same problem.
Sure, but he *isn't* up front about getting a windfall profit off of sticking the public with a huge unnecessary bill by legislative fiat. Writing off the gas powered plants as implied by his plan to protect his other investments has *nothing* to do with promoting wind power, and is nothing but a form of corporate welfare.
BTW, 90% of all trips is not the same as 90% of the needs of drivers. The longer trips are not distributed evenly among all drivers. Most people just about *never* make longer trips, and certainly not on a daily or even weekly basis.
Re: NG conversions - They are possible, but it's not particularly easy or cheap. Flex-fuel conversions are by comparison much easier.
What we really need to bridge the gap are flex-fuel plug-in hybrids.
Commenting by HaloScan
