Pickens Plan (New Ways To Energy Situation)

[Smoot Point Really]

SPR nailed it (I can't believe I said that).

You know you want to agree with me more than you are willing to admit.

[ACW]

You know you want to agree with me more than you are willing to admit.

On this :yes:

On most other issues :no:

[Larry]

I am bumping this... I've seen a ton of Boone-Pickens commercials. I'm starting to get the creeps from this guy, especially with his huge investment in wind farms and the funding from Pelosi. It sounds desperate. I think there is quite a lot of questioning that needs to happen with this... Why are members of congress (or at least the most important member of congress) investing in Boone-Pickens and why do we need to send Federal money to prop up wind farms instead of letting the free-market take care of this situation. I have no problem with Boone-Pickens investing in wind farms, I have a bigger problem with seeing his face plastered all over the TV (spending lots of money on advertising), then hoping for a big government pay day.

I wouldn't automatically jump to the assumption that the guy's trying to fleece the taxpayers. An alternate explanation would be that he's in the wind business because he's a True Believer. That he's not pushing wind (catchy phrase, there) because he's in the wind business, that he's in the wind business because he thinks it's the best place to be.

(Me, I don't think wind will ever be economically feasible. Only reason people claim it works right now is because the taxpayers are paying the construction costs, and then they're requiring the electric companies to buy the power at more than a dozen times the market price.)

I think solar might be viable some day. (Maybe soon). (I don't mean "every hippie has a panel on his roof". I mean "the power plant has 4 square miles of mirrors focusing sunlight on a single, tower-mounted target".)

I think nuclear isn't renewable, but it's proven technology that works right now, and there's a lot to be said for that.

[Smoot Point Really]

(Me, I don't think wind will ever be economically feasible. Only reason people claim it works right now is because the taxpayers are paying the construction costs, and then they're requiring the electric companies to buy the power at more than a dozen times the market price.)

I agreed with most of what you said, and I want to highlight this paragraph... This is why Boone-Pickens smells fishy to me. He's advocating all forms of energy, but you know he's already invested quite a lot in wind farms.

Article from Last year

I am under the impression that his efforts aren't all that profitable yet. However, he's "campaigning" right now. Eventually, (if not already) people will start believing this "economically feasible" and the congress will put American tax dollars behind it and he'll be "bailed out" of a bad investment.

The biggest problem I have with this is that it won't be free market principles in action, but lobbying the federal government for a pay day.

[twa]

I agreed with most of what you said, and I want to highlight this paragraph... This is why Boone-Pickens smells fishy to me. He's advocating all forms of energy, but you know he's already invested quite a lot in wind farms.

Article from Last year

I am under the impression that his efforts aren't all that profitable yet. However, he's "campaigning" right now. Eventually, (if not already) people will start believing this "economically feasible" and the congress will put American tax dollars behind it and he'll be "bailed out" of a bad investment.

The biggest problem I have with this is that it won't be free market principles in action, but lobbying the federal government for a pay day.

There is really nothing fishy to it,Pickens is a businessman first last and always...he sees it as profitable because of the political climate and regulations....wind,ethanol,solar ALL suck up tax dollars

Don't hate the player,push for more common sense laws and regulations and make sure the public funds are utilized well..

[Larry]

Oh, I have no problem with the government stimulating an industry.

(I do think that the word "stimulate" seems to often be used when "payout" is a more appropriate term.)

I think that the cases where the government should use taxpayer money to stimulate an industry are very, very, rare. But I think that energy independence is a good enough reason. (I think we should have done it 20 years ago.)

For example, I'm normally opposed to any government "stimulus" of any industry where I think private industry is already moving there, or has enough motivation to move there. (For example, I'd vehemently oppose the government giving payments or tax breaks to oil companies to drill, offshore or elsewhere. IMO, if $200 a barrel isn't enough of a motive for them to spend their own money drilling, then eff 'em, and they deserve to become the next buggy whip industry.)

OTOH, I believe that energy is such a fundamental part of our national economy, and that our dependence, not just on oil, but on foreign oil is costing our country in so many, many, areas, including economically, politically, and militarily, that I'd consider it a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money, just to accelerate something that might well happen on it's own, eventually, anyway.

(And I also agree with the folks who've claimed that the country that leads in the technology of this new energy will also have a leg up in the world's economy. That if we can conquer this technology, it could do for our economy what Boeing did for decades.)

[Smoot Point Really]

There is really nothing fishy to it,Pickens is a businessman first last and always...he sees it as profitable because of the political climate and regulations....wind,ethanol,solar ALL suck up tax dollars

Don't hate the player,push for more common sense laws and regulations and make sure the public funds are utilized well..

Tell me what you thought of Enron/Cheney connection?

[twa]

Tell me what you thought of Enron/Cheney connection?

I try not to comment on people that shoot friends...I'll pass;)

[Larry]

Tell me what you thought of Enron/Cheney connection?

Me, I could care less what a President used to do. (Especially since I'm firmly convinced that at least some politicians, their former jobs were really paper jobs created as part of the grooming process, anyway.)

I don't care that Jimmy Carter owned a peanut farm, or that Reagan filmed Bedtime for Bonzo.

OTOH, I do care that both Bush and Cheney seem to be acting as oil industry lobbyists, even after being elected. That, I have a problem with.

(No, I don't have any idea how a voter can tell, in advance, whether a politician will act that way if elected.)

[techboy]

It's amazing how political winds shift in country (get it? winds? ha!).

2004, T Boone Pickens is part of the "swift boat" movement, and so the most evil man on the planet to Democrats, and a hero to Republicans.

4 years later, and he has Nancy Pelosi on his side, and people are joking that Bush and Cheney want to kill him...

[JohnLockesGhost]

I think that the cases where the government should use taxpayer money to stimulate an industry are very, very, rare. But I think that energy independence is a good enough reason. (I think we should have done it 20 years ago.)

My two cents? Energy independence = Economic suicide.

[JohnLockesGhost]

To those blasting pickens because he is going to make money off this:

That is the basis of a capitalistic society...find a need and provide a means to fulfill that need at a profit.

Who cares if he makes money off it. Who cares if he makes 100000 trillion dollars. If it works, helps our economy, and reduces my power bills (car, home, etc) then I am all for it.

If he's such a great capitalist, why is he airing a million commercials asking me to "join" him? It's a political campaign, that's why. He's saying get government to up its subsidies for wind power, so I can make a boatload.

[Larry]

My two cents? Energy independence = Economic suicide.

Uh, because everybody knows that our economy simply cannot survive unless we're setting new records, every year, for foreign trade deficits to terrorist sponsoring countries who hate us?

[twa]

I don't think he objects to removing the influence OPEC has on our economy and security.

I believe he is simply cautioning about creating yet more government cash cows w/o considering the costs or price effectiveness.

Throwing 'large' sums of money into inefficient,untested programs is a mistake and wasteful.

I do heartily support the search for alternatives though.

if he ain't... I am.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Uh, because everybody knows that our economy simply cannot survive unless we're setting new records, every year, for foreign trade deficits to terrorist sponsoring countries who hate us?

Well what's better economically, buying cheap energy from abroad? Or buying expensive energy at home?

What you're saying is where we buy are energy is more important than how much we spend on it.

I could entertain the argument the "energy independence" is a national security issue. Just don't lie about it and say it's going to be a economic boon.

[Koolblue13]

It's amazing how political winds shift in country (get it? winds? ha!).

2004, T Boone Pickens is part of the "swift boat" movement, and so the most evil man on the planet to Democrats, and a hero to Republicans.

4 years later, and he has Nancy Pelosi on his side, and people are joking that Bush and Cheney want to kill him...

Back in the 80's a little know Governor worked with a future president while he worked with a well run government organization to do some very illegal things then became the president himself afterward.

The two teams decided to hedge their bets a log time ago. I bet the money has been great.

[Larry]

Well what's better economically, buying cheap energy from abroad? Or buying expensive energy at home?

Hmmm, I'll take non-existent fictional position number 2.

When oil was $80 a barrel, we produced oil domestically. Enough to meet half of our needs.

Do you really intend to make an "economic" argument, that when the price of oil goes from $80 to $200, that the number of places we can extract oil, domestically, didn't change a bit? That there aren't any places where it wasn't profitable to drill, but now it is?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Hmmm, I'll take non-existent fictional position number 2.

When oil was $80 a barrel, we produced oil domestically. Enough to meet half of our needs.

Do you really intend to make an "economic" argument, that when the price of oil goes from $80 to $200, that the number of places we can extract oil, domestically, didn't change a bit? That there aren't any places where it wasn't profitable to drill, but now it is?

Dude, of course I wouldn't argue that. I'm not an idiot. We'll continue to produce more oil domestically as the price rises, and I'm totally fine with that. But the crazy pursuit of "energy independence" will be this country's white whale.

Let me clarify, by saying I'm fine with the market producing all the economical energy domestically as is possible. The government has severe restrictions right now on the production of oil and natural gas from offshore and nuclear power plants. Those should be loosened. However, if we're talking about the government actively pursuing, through tax breaks and subsidies, energy independence to the ends of the earth, I say we're foolhardy.

I want cheap energy, I don't care where it comes from.

[Baculus]

That is a decent looking plan. I don't understand how an issue such as energy policy becomes so partisan.

The practice of sticking it to the other side just for the hell of it has to stop and it has to stop soon or this country is in serious trouble.

It became partisan when, decades ago, the national Republican party decided that its energy policy will be Big Oil, and that alternative energy is very low on the priority list.

Look at how many folks in that party now has ties with the oil industry? And the choosing of Palin as the VP indicates even further the direction of the McCain energy policy.

Even though the McCain/Palin ticket is trying to distance themselves from the Bush administration, we are not going to see any changes in energy policy. It WILL be more of the same, because it has been more of the same over the last few Republican administrations, as far as energy is concerned.

[Baculus]

My two cents? Energy independence = Economic suicide.

That seems like an odd position.

Energy independence means cheaper, self-sustaining energy. It is that simple.

If we are energy independent, there is also a good chance that we are far less beholden to foreign sources of energy, which also means that we don't have to adjust our foreign policy based upon competition for resources.

[twa]

It became partisan when, decades ago, the national Republican party decided that its energy policy will be Big Oil, and that alternative energy is very low on the priority list.

Don't you mean decades ago when foolish government policy (guess who's)crippled the domestic oil industry in favor of cheap foreign oil and resulted in international buyouts of control of that industry.?

Funny how this red state has no trouble exploring alternative energy.

[JohnLockesGhost]

That seems like an odd position.

Energy independence means cheaper, self-sustaining energy. It is that simple.

If this were true we'd already be independent. We wouldn't need a massive government program of energy subsidies to mask the expense of alternatives. There would be no debate.

If we are energy independent, there is also a good chance that we are far less beholden to foreign sources of energy, which also means that we don't have to adjust our foreign policy based upon competition for resources.

And if I could spit out diamonds, I'd be rich, but I can't. Sometimes reality bites.

To your last sentence, we can compete for resources in two ways: We can fight using force to secure our energy, as some would say we are doing now. Or we can compete peacefully using money. Just buy the stuff on the world market.

[Larry]

It became partisan when, decades ago, the national Republican party decided that its energy policy will be Big Oil, and that alternative energy is very low on the priority list.

I'd go a bit further. It became partisan when the GOP decided that the winning "energy strategy" was "ridicule anybody who suggests that utter dependency on foreign oil is a Bad Idea."

When they decided that it was their party's position that anybody who says we should even consider any new energy technology is a whackjob hippie communist who wants to destroy the entire US economy.

[Larry]

If this were true we'd already be independent. We wouldn't need a massive government program of energy subsidies to mask the expense of alternatives. There would be no debate.

And if I could spit out diamonds, I'd be rich, but I can't. Sometimes reality bites.

To your last sentence, we can compete for resources in two ways: We can fight using force to secure our energy, as some would say we are doing now. Or we can compete peacefully using money. Just buy the stuff on the world market.

Because everybody knows that any technology that isn't already in place today will never, ever, be possible. It's impossible for any economy to function by doing anything other than whatever they did 10 years ago.

[moviedude25]

I'm tired of all the debates and/or lack thereof...

we gotta step up and move on the issue, people.

Pickens seems to be the only one presenting a well thought out idea... while Congress tries to figure out how THEY can benefit for the topic for the election.

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Pickens is trying to get rich off of this. Don't be a fool. Some of his ideas are good and I agree with them but seriously he's saying nothing that isn't already known. He's just trying to use your emotions in this issue against you and manipulate this situation as his own. Sorry but I don't buy it. Do some of what he says but there is no reason to buy into Pickens Plan. If you want to buy that I'll sell you on an idea that breathing is good, support me and you will live longer. Its rubbish