So, what do we think of PickensPlan?

[futureperfect5]

Have you heard about it: PickensPlan (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)?

video1 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Intro1

video2 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Intro2

video3 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Wind Power

Your comments and poll response please ...
</div>

Sorry about the typos in the poll;))
</div>

[MrEPenguin]

I cool with having cleaner energy, but I really don't give a rip if we import oil or not. I think it'd be good to at least start producing more wind generation, solar and nuclear energy. Coal sucks.....:yuck:

[Tenacious B]

I like the idea of wind power and am willing to try natural gas for transportation fuel, but I have a hard time taking any plan seriously that does not include a massive expansion of nuclear power.

I think we need to attack energy on all fronts: drilling, coal, conservation, wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, and bio (but not ethanol, don't burn food as fuel).

It's great that T. Boone has been able to get people to think realistically about reducing oil imports, it is much more useful than protesting with signs saying oil is murder.

[futureperfect5]

Yes, I agree all energy assets applied where best suited -- including nuclear.

It surprises me top find someone willing to write that imported oil does not matter ... in a year where gasoline has been over 4 dollars a gallon? Surely we as INTJs are making megabucks ... still, the people who I know with megabucks do not like to dribble it away unnecessarily ...</div>

[thegnat]

It focuses on wind. I like the fact that it wants wind to work. And I like the whole alternative fuels thing with it. Alternative fuels are an absolute must. Wind is always *ahem* blown over....pun intended....
NUCLEAR! No! SOLAR! etc...

20% is very reasonable. Sure I don't want to see wind turbines everywhere I look but if we must, we must. I'm getting to the point at where I'm desperate for people to try more alternative/domestic methods no matter what they entail. Which is honestly sad, but *something must be done!*

It's not the food issue with ethanol - it's the whole cutting down trees issue with ethanol I have a problem with...more farmland for ethanol = less trees....

I'm a bit iffy on natural gas. It smeeeeeells nasty when a line has broken...Things that smell aren't usually that great....

Ok, I'm stopping...

[current]

I couldn't vote this poll. What seems to be most reasonable for me (being European) simply doesn't occur in the list. The wind part could be fine, but ehh. 20%. What about the rest? If you ask me, this would be quite a nice and inventive plan, back in the eighties.
I'll write down my thoughts, just hope not to step on some touchy American toes somewhere.

There we go:

1. Think big, the world is bigger than your country. And so is the problem. The problem is really not the fact that you are going to be in need of importing whatever. Money is not the issue here.
2. Think long term. Natural gas? Don't make laugh. What's the essential difference with oil? It's postponing everything, a little while.
3. Think even more long term. Nuclear? Ever visited the Chernobyl region? I did. It would end all your positive thoughts about nuclear energy.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.
That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

source : To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That means that the other 96% of the world uses 8 times less oil than US. A similar calculation, however way less extreme could be made for most other developed countries. This number is the key to the real solution:

It's the energy (i.e. effort) that ANYone is going to spend in reducing the energy amount that he/she consumes. And as a lot of people and companies got used to spill a lot of energy, it's easy to save more than 50% and probably with a bit more effort 75% is feasible. No big infrastructural changes for this, just a plan that is supported by many or is pushed by government. A real plan.

[Mozzes]

I couldn't vote this poll. What seems to be most reasonable for me (being European) simply doesn't occur in the list. The wind part could be fine, but ehh. 20%. What about the rest? If you ask me, this would be quite a nice and inventive plan, back in the eighties.
I'll write down my thoughts, just hope not to step on some touchy American toes somewhere.

There we go:

1. Think big, the world is bigger than your country. And so is the problem. The problem is really not the fact that you are going to be in need of importing whatever. Money is not the issue here.
2. Think long term. Natural gas? Don't make laugh. What's the essential difference with oil? It's postponing everything, a little while.
3. Think even more long term. Nuclear? Ever visited the Chernobyl region? I did. It would end all your positive thoughts about nuclear energy.

That means that the other 96% of the world uses 8 times less oil than US. A similar calculation, however way less extreme could be made for most other developed countries. This number is the key to the real solution:

It's the energy (i.e. effort) that ANYone is going to spend in reducing the energy amount that he/she consumes. And as a lot of people and companies got used to spill a lot of energy, it's easy to save more than 50% and probably with a bit more effort 75% is feasible. No big infrastructural changes for this, just a plan that is supported by many or is pushed by government. A real plan.

I don't know that this so-called plan amounts to much. Your big idea is "use less energy"? Ok, assuming we do it takes us, what, twice as long to run out of easily extractable fossil fuels? And even assuming North America and western Europe did cut energy consumption by 50% what prevents China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc from filling in the demand? Ironfisted control of global energy markets? And we're still polluting the environment along the way.

Don't get me wrong, "use less energy" is a good idea - as part of a larger plan. But by itself? You're trying to make a molehill out of a mountain.

[reb]

i heard on rush limburger that t. bone owns a big stake in the wind power and other sources he's touting in his ad. so, in effect, he's saying 'give me your money instead of the arabs and nigeria, venezuela, canada'. i suppose he looks like my grandpa, but i think i'll continue to work on conservation measures, and drive my small car as much as i can....i already got as efficient a house style as i could build (a dome); now i'm working on solar hot water. i'd rather have a real 't bone steak' than a 't. boone stake'.

i looked into solar as an alternative; 15 grand to get about 1/10th of my monthly electric usage; no payback until after i reach my life expectancy. i put in propane for about the same cost, and it'll provide all my usage for a month for about the same price as the solar 1/10th. looking at how to do solar hot water with the old electric waterheater. at our rates, propane is slightly less than $3 the equal amount of btu as electric at $4.50. there's about 93,000 btu in a gallon of propane; there's about 3,200 in a kwh of electric (if my memory is correct on these numbers....blackle shoud have 'em). easy to figger; all ya gotta do is the math...t. boone already did...it puts money in his pocket.

he interviews well (glenn beck, wasn't it?); this must be the first course in the diploma for 'steal a billion bucks'; learn to schmooze with the media.....
r

[mxdntz]

T. Boone does have a lot riding on his proposal. He has invested 3 billion or so of his own money to wind farms in Texas so that should be considered. Also He is employed by BP, one of the world biggest oil (and natural gas) Co's. Natural gas as a transportation fuel sounds good to me, but we will still need to overhaul 99% of all internal combustion engines and fueling stations, so maybe it should just be a part of the solution and not the whole. If we overhaul the fueling stations to add natural gas to the mix, then we should also add Hydrogen, which is the most abundant element in the universe.

[futureperfect5]

Before you characterize Pickens as a self-motivated lecher, you might want to read up on him ...

He has dedicated 58 million of his funds to making wind power viable. He was on Larry King with Branson (Virgin) and others ...

Find out everything, determine your concerns and then make something happen ... if you have a better plan, let us know.

i heard on rush limburger that t. bone owns a big stake in the wind power and other sources he's touting in his ad. so, in effect, he's saying 'give me your money instead of the arabs and nigeria, venezuela, canada'. i suppose he looks like my grandpa, but i think i'll continue to work on conservation measures, and drive my small car as much as i can....i already got as efficient a house style as i could build (a dome); now i'm working on solar hot water. i'd rather have a real 't bone steak' than a 't. boone stake'.

i looked into solar as an alternative; 15 grand to get about 1/10th of my monthly electric usage; no payback until after i reach my life expectancy. i put in propane for about the same cost, and it'll provide all my usage for a month for about the same price as the solar 1/10th. looking at how to do solar hot water with the old electric waterheater. at our rates, propane is slightly less than $3 the equal amount of btu as electric at $4.50. there's about 93,000 btu in a gallon of propane; there's about 3,200 in a kwh of electric (if my memory is correct on these numbers....blackle shoud have 'em). easy to figger; all ya gotta do is the math...t. boone already did...it puts money in his pocket.

he interviews well (glenn beck, wasn't it?); this must be the first course in the diploma for 'steal a billion bucks'; learn to schmooze with the media.....
r

[thegnat]

I couldn't vote this poll. What seems to be most reasonable for me (being European) simply doesn't occur in the list. The wind part could be fine, but ehh. 20%. What about the rest? If you ask me, this would be quite a nice and inventive plan, back in the eighties.
I'll write down my thoughts, just hope not to step on some touchy American toes somewhere.
Wind along with other alternate sources of energy could make up more than 20%. IMHO we could go all green alternative soon enough. As long as it's pushed and funded.

There we go:

1. Think big, the world is bigger than your country. And so is the problem. The problem is really not the fact that you are going to be in need of importing whatever. Money is not the issue here.

But it IS an issue. Americans like low gas prices, whether it's good for the environment or not. Americans like low food prices, whether it's green or not. Our country is BADLY in debt. Domestically-made energy will cut energy costs a lot. It'll help people *switch over* to alternatives. They are NOT going to switch to a more green, but more expensive alternative. It's a fact of life.

2. Think long term. Natural gas? Don't make laugh. What's the essential difference with oil? It's postponing everything, a little while.
I'm not a big fan of it either.

3. Think even more long term. Nuclear? Ever visited the Chernobyl region? I did. It would end all your positive thoughts about nuclear energy. I know quite a few people with positive thoughts on nuclear energy who know about Chernobyl. I haven't looked into it much myself. But honestly, I think the perception of it is a lot worse than its reality.

That means that the other 96% of the world uses 8 times less oil than US. A similar calculation, however way less extreme could be made for most other developed countries. This number is the key to the real solution:

It's the energy (i.e. effort) that ANYone is going to spend in reducing the energy amount that he/she consumes. And as a lot of people and companies got used to spill a lot of energy, it's easy to save more than 50% and probably with a bit more effort 75% is feasible. No big infrastructural changes for this, just a plan that is supported by many or is pushed by government. A real plan.

Your real plan has one big fallacy: People here do NOT like to downsize - and they won't do it unless mandated, and mandating something like that would....eeeek...be bad news. EAnd the culture here is "more, more, more" with everything. Just using less is a bad idea. So what if infrastructure has to change? Something has to.

[Undead Bonzi]

I couldn't vote this poll. What seems to be most reasonable for me (being European) simply doesn't occur in the list. The wind part could be fine, but ehh. 20%. What about the rest? If you ask me, this would be quite a nice and inventive plan, back in the eighties.
I'll write down my thoughts, just hope not to step on some touchy American toes somewhere.

There we go:

1. Think big, the world is bigger than your country. And so is the problem. The problem is really not the fact that you are going to be in need of importing whatever. Money is not the issue here.
2. Think long term. Natural gas? Don't make laugh. What's the essential difference with oil? It's postponing everything, a little while.
3. Think even more long term. Nuclear? Ever visited the Chernobyl region? I did. It would end all your positive thoughts about nuclear energy.

That means that the other 96% of the world uses 8 times less oil than US. A similar calculation, however way less extreme could be made for most other developed countries. This number is the key to the real solution:

It's the energy (i.e. effort) that ANYone is going to spend in reducing the energy amount that he/she consumes. And as a lot of people and companies got used to spill a lot of energy, it's easy to save more than 50% and probably with a bit more effort 75% is feasible. No big infrastructural changes for this, just a plan that is supported by many or is pushed by government. A real plan.


#1. Agreed in general. This is a global problem and all countries (or the biggest) are going to need to work together on this. The biggest priority is to fix ourselves, but the second priority is to help China and India avoid making the mistakes we already made. At the rate those countries are industrializing they will make the U.S. energy use look pathetic in two or three decades. If we can help them now to make an efficient infrastructure and energy base they can avoid many of the same mistakes we have made. It also +needs to be realized though that money will always play a role in how things are done, for better or worse profits will always rule the equation...no matter how short sighted the results are. The current economics model could be compared to a bunch of short distance sprinters running a marthon who belive that the most important thing is to always lead in the race and go fast...thus right off the starting line everyone is sprinting and trying to get ahead, trying to lead the pack and talking about how great it is to run fast. What nobody running the race seems to realize is that the real goal is to finish the race...which none of them are going to do because sprinting in a marathon is idiotic.


#2. Natural Gas is a bad joke. As a clean energy source it is fantastic, the problem is that Natural Gas production peaked (meaning we reached the top of the mountain or plateau, we can't really go any higher) just in this last decade. Take a look at how many new power plants are being made to use natural gas....you won't find many at all and there is a reason for that. Check out California’s energy problems they have recently had in the last couple decades to better understand this problem. Someone also mentioned that natural gas stinks...interesting fact: Did you know that we actually add that odor for safety? True natural gas is colorless, odorless and entirely lethal...the smell is for safety and easier detection of leaks.

#3. Nuclear (for better or worse) will likely need to be a large part of any energy plan, Chernobyl just illustrates the dangers of such a course. That said Chernobyl was an old Soviet Block power plant and the U.S.S.R. was not know for stringent safety or quality control programs. I'm no real expert but I have a feeling the nuclear plants used in Western Europe, America and Japan are much safer than Chernobyl. The real problem with Nuclear energy is understanding that it isn't free either. It takes a massive amount of energy to mine and refine the rare elements that make up the fuel rods of nuclear power.

This is unrelated but it's about the wisdom of listening to radio talk show hosts (someone mentioned Rush L.) of ANY political bent....DON'T DO IT. All those radio show host pander to the most extreme right and left view points and amount to little more than propaganda. Sure the guy has a lot invested in wind energy, he sees it as a major part of the future solution and like any good business man he made an investment. Wouldn't you have bigger doubts if he recommended wind energy but did not invest in it? That would raise far larger doubts in my mind. Sure the guy is going to make money...is that a valid reason to discount an idea? Shall I cut off my nose to spite my face? Radio talk show hosts love to play 'gotcha!', it is what gets them an audience. Liberals listen to Rush because he annoys them, conservatives listen to Rush because he offers affirmation of their every belief...truth and facts don't come into the equation.

[futureperfect5]

First, thanks for not pulling the punch (like I did) on Rush Limbaugh ... personally, I would not listen to a word he says ... Larry King, on the other hand, is interviewing people who have serious experience and expertise in their fields ... So, for sake of clarity, I was not quoting him ...

Second, as a Euro perspective, I appreciate your input -- although I cannot go back to Chernobyl as an example (so much time has passed) and the French model has had considerable, safe, data to offer -- not that nuclear is not dangerous, however it can be used safely.

I have reservations about Natural Gas option, too ... I much prefer wind and solar ...

Lastly, do we think that if the US dependency is greatly decrease that the world oil price would go down, too?

#1. Agreed in general. This is a global problem and all countries (or the biggest) are going to need to work together on this. The biggest priority is to fix ourselves, but the second priority is to help China and India avoid making the mistakes we already made. At the rate those countries are industrializing they will make the U.S. energy use look pathetic in two or three decades. If we can help them now to make an efficient infrastructure and energy base they can avoid many of the same mistakes we have made. It also +needs to be realized though that money will always play a role in how things are done, for better or worse profits will always rule the equation...no matter how short sighted the results are. The current economics model could be compared to a bunch of short distance sprinters running a marthon who belive that the most important thing is to always lead in the race and go fast...thus right off the starting line everyone is sprinting and trying to get ahead, trying to lead the pack and talking about how great it is to run fast. What nobody running the race seems to realize is that the real goal is to finish the race...which none of them are going to do because sprinting in a marathon is idiotic.


#2. Natural Gas is a bad joke. As a clean energy source it is fantastic, the problem is that Natural Gas production peaked (meaning we reached the top of the mountain or plateau, we can't really go any higher) just in this last decade. Take a look at how many new power plants are being made to use natural gas....you won't find many at all and there is a reason for that. Check out California’s energy problems they have recently had in the last couple decades to better understand this problem. Someone also mentioned that natural gas stinks...interesting fact: Did you know that we actually add that odor for safety? True natural gas is colorless, odorless and entirely lethal...the smell is for safety and easier detection of leaks.

#3. Nuclear (for better or worse) will likely need to be a large part of any energy plan, Chernobyl just illustrates the dangers of such a course. That said Chernobyl was an old Soviet Block power plant and the U.S.S.R. was not know for stringent safety or quality control programs. I'm no real expert but I have a feeling the nuclear plants used in Western Europe, America and Japan are much safer than Chernobyl. The real problem with Nuclear energy is understanding that it isn't free either. It takes a massive amount of energy to mine and refine the rare elements that make up the fuel rods of nuclear power.

This is unrelated but it's about the wisdom of listening to radio talk show hosts (someone mentioned Rush L.) of ANY political bent....DON'T DO IT. All those radio show host pander to the most extreme right and left view points and amount to little more than propaganda. Sure the guy has a lot invested in wind energy, he sees it as a major part of the future solution and like any good business man he made an investment. Wouldn't you have bigger doubts if he recommended wind energy but did not invest in it? That would raise far larger doubts in my mind. Sure the guy is going to make money...is that a valid reason to discount an idea? Shall I cut off my nose to spite my face? Radio talk show hosts love to play 'gotcha!', it is what gets them an audience. Liberals listen to Rush because he annoys them, conservatives listen to Rush because he offers affirmation of their every belief...truth and facts don't come into the equation.

[reb]

futureperfect5,

1. i am old enough i don't honestly g.a.s. about a 'better idea'. this is the problem of those who want to live to their actuarial life expectancy. my goal has been achieved....

2. i poke fun at everyone who 'adverts' to make themselves look 'good', while having a stake in the outcome; i have no stake in t. bone's outcome, or anyone else's for that matter. live with it, or not.

3. i coont g.a.s about t. bone, except for his arrogance to put forth an ad which doesn't address the basic problem...too many people breeding, and medical science helping them to 'live longer' (having a heart rate, breathing and a brain trace doesn't look like living to me, btw-i suppose the point is to have a 'money farm' in order to fleece the carcass-reminds me of a parasite).

reb

[zibber]

I like this, I guess. I always appreciate people who present practical ideas that could feasibly be implemented with the consent of the masses, because god diggity damn, I could never muster the patience to do that myself.

reb, I agree with most of what you said, but this plan is practical. I would never do it, just to emphasise that undeniable fact, but unfortunately you need to be on every TV show and have some sensational aspect to your spiel to get people to listen.

[Undead Bonzi]

futureperfect5,

1. i am old enough i don't honestly g.a.s. about a 'better idea'. this is the problem of those who want to live to their actuarial life expectancy. my goal has been achieved....

2. i poke fun at everyone who 'adverts' to make themselves look 'good', while having a stake in the outcome; i have no stake in t. bone's outcome, or anyone else's for that matter. live with it, or not.

3. i coont g.a.s about t. bone, except for his arrogance to put forth an ad which doesn't address the basic problem...too many people breeding, and medical science helping them to 'live longer' (having a heart rate, breathing and a brain trace doesn't look like living to me, btw-i suppose the point is to have a 'money farm' in order to fleece the carcass-reminds me of a parasite).

reb

Yes, how dare that bastard try to put forth an idea to just fix one part of one problem? Any realist would have put forth a plan complete with population caps and death camps for the elderly and infirm because surely such a plan would be accepted and implemented instantly. Only liars and cheats need to package good ideas in understandable and achievable proportions. What an asshole T. Boone is to not try to make a plan that will solve every problem the world has in one sweep...what arrogance to just try to fix what is in his reach and is achievable. Truly a detestable man. We should all not 'g.a.s', because apathy has fixed so much for the better.

[End satirical rant]

I am reminded of what was once told to me by a community planner. In essence he said that apathy is the only obstacle to any plan. You could have a plan to fix everything and create perfection, but if you can't get people to believe in and work towards that plan then nothing will ever happen. Great ideas do accomplish themselves; you have to sell it to make it work. Is this Boone guys plan the greatest idea ever? No, but I give him kudos for creating a realistic plan and attempting to sell it enough that it actually happens. The big lesson here is that it is far too easy to sit on your a.s.s. and not g.a.s and make fun of those who do.

[reb]

apathy r us....lol! have to have some path in life, and i chose 'apathy', as it seemed as antipathic as i could get...

just a little vignette (or is that vinagarette?)...

for a good while, i had 5 canvas sacks i took to the grocery store. about every other time i took them, instead of putting groceries in them, the somewhat mentally handicapped sackers put them in a plastic bag, and put them in my cart. i never said 'boo'; even i am not that much of an ogre (although i can be, i chose not to). i support hiring the handicapped; in fact, i support promoting them to management...this was not my original idea...lots of companies adopted it long ago; in this case, the u.s.s of a. government led the charge to employ the mentally challenged.....

finally, i thought, 'i have a super efficient house. i have a danged efficient car. i have had no 'provable' rugrats. carting this wad of canvas sacks around is silly....i'm NOT making a difference....it's like 'religion, the opiate of the masses'...this and many other things like it are the current 'opiate of the masses'-it keeps us from dealing with the serious issues. i quit.' and i did. i now use one canvas sack for library books, and have the others in various duty. if i remember to take the plastic ones back to the store, cool. if not, t.s.. i'm not polluting as much as al gore, and i'm not buying 'carbon credits' (how fing_____....words fail me...carbon credits...should have to buy a license to breathe....which some greedy bstd will put into law shortly...)

all of you do what you like; it's cool. the end is near lol!

heard on the radio today that nasa admits an assteroid (very close to a hemmorhoid) will pass 19,000 miles from earth in 2027. the guy on the radio claims 'they lie! it's gonna hit us, but they don't want panic!' lol! i suggest that nasa call t. bone....he'll put up a solar shield....if not, don't forget to duck! quack! quack!...sounds like a trial of a doctor....duck slap!

reb

[Reon]

apathy r us....lol! have to have some path in life, and i chose 'apathy', as it seemed as antipathic as i could get...

just a little vignette (or is that vinagarette?)...

for a good while, i had 5 canvas sacks i took to the grocery store. about every other time i took them, instead of putting groceries in them, the somewhat mentally handicapped sackers put them in a plastic bag, and put them in my cart. i never said 'boo'; even i am not that much of an ogre (although i can be, i chose not to). i support hiring the handicapped; in fact, i support promoting them to management...this was not my original idea...lots of companies adopted it long ago; in this case, the u.s.s of a. government led the charge to employ the mentally challenged.....

finally, i thought, 'i have a super efficient house. i have a danged efficient car. i have had no 'provable' rugrats. carting this wad of canvas sacks around is silly....i'm NOT making a difference....it's like 'religion, the opiate of the masses'...this and many other things like it are the current 'opiate of the masses'-it keeps us from dealing with the serious issues. i quit.' and i did. i now use one canvas sack for library books, and have the others in various duty. if i remember to take the plastic ones back to the store, cool. if not, t.s.. i'm not polluting as much as al gore, and i'm not buying 'carbon credits' (how fing_____....words fail me...carbon credits...should have to buy a license to breathe....which some greedy bstd will put into law shortly...)

all of you do what you like; it's cool. the end is near lol!

heard on the radio today that nasa admits an assteroid (very close to a hemmorhoid) will pass 19,000 miles from earth in 2027. the guy on the radio claims 'they lie! it's gonna hit us, but they don't want panic!' lol! i suggest that nasa call t. bone....he'll put up a solar shield....if not, don't forget to duck! quack! quack!...sounds like a trial of a doctor....duck slap!

reb

If you are speaking of (137108) 1999 AN10 then yes, it'll pass within 389,960 kilos. (like 242,000 miles) Why would they tell us in the first place if it was going to hit us o.o.

Anyway, if you think about yourself as a person and how your polluting, your not going to amount to much and it will seem like it won't matter. This is a 'global' problem and every little bit helps. (Sorry, I may be misinterpreting what your saying)

[reb]

Serge,

yeah, i think that was the name they gave the asteroid. i don't care if it's a hit or amiss...kind like miley cyrus...lol!

i don't think of myself as a person; i'm not. i think about myself as 'already dead'; in fact, i'm sure you are, too, you just haven't realized it yet. how many kwhrs per month does your house use? how many mpg's does your car get? i use less than 1,000 kwhrs per month; all electric, but have propane for hot water heat now-more efficient, less polluting than coal generated electricity...cost me a bundle to install...how much did you spend 'not polluting' this year? my car gets 36 in town, 42 on highway (my driving, not epa). lotsa critics...not much info, it would seem....usual political stance bs. 'i'm green! i'm green!' yah, sure...swedish fine.

so, anyone who thinks i'm polluting? well, stop breathing...that'd save the rest of us from your pollution...lol! i once saw a bumper sticker said 'commit suicide! save the planet!' i still think it's among the top 10 funniest ones i've ever seen.
reb

[aparkedcar]

Hrmmmm.....I might like the natural gas part (depending on its feasibility), but I'd like to combine that with nuclear and drilling at home. I find all other alternatives questionable at best. My policy is if you can do it without government subsidies and it's profitable then you should do it.

[mikedilger]

I find Picken's plan to be based on illogic. Who cares if the oil is imported or not? Saudi Arabia imports US food, medicine, and technology, and the US imports their oil. It's a reasonable trade; the US is not helpless without local energy supplies, remote supplies will do just fine... unless the US needs to lock-down all the borders and operate as an isolated nation... and that would be very counterproductive.

The market will direct goods, and the production of goods. A lot of entrepreneurs, expert geologists, physicists, investors, and speculators are throwing lots of money and resources at the energy problem, in a competitive way. It will be solved without any over-arching guidance... Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will do it.

Commodity markets boom and bust in long cycles. Lots and lots of people are looking for oil right now. Many are betting on solar. I have money working on geothermal projects. Expert economists in the field, especially the old timers, KNOW that collectively mankind will OVERSHOOT. We always do. We will find TOO MUCH of the stuff. Energy prices will plummet, and many companies will go out of business.... Then supplies will diminsh over time and the cycle will repeat.

You might think that with foresight, the boom-bust cycle could be stopped... that we could find "just enough." But in fact it's not possible. If any individual company doesn't push forward to the best of their ability, they lose market share while the getting is still good, and other companies gleefully enjoy it. Only the market prices coming down will stop the rampant surge to produce more energy that the high prices have ignited.

Learn. Understand. Laugh. Don't worry about it.

[reb]

a friend and i exchange magazines once a month; he sends me stuff i don't subscribe to, and vice versa (now why would we do that? magazines are only recycled paper....). when i finish his, i give them to a Marine down the road, who takes them to the va hospital when he's finished. my friend who exchanges with me takes the ones he's done with that i send to the local old folks' home. sounds like a good deal, huh? try it, you'll like it....

this article was so parallel to the recent discussion, i thought it might be 'food for thought'. hope you can read it; sometimes the 'enlargement' doesn't work too well on bucket....

reb

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.