When T. Boone Pickens started pushing his "Pickens Plan" for energy independence, I wondered what his angle was.
In case you live in a cave, Pickens' plan is to build a large (4000MW) wind-powered energy complex on land he owns in West Texas. In addition to his proposal that we use wind for 20% of our electric needs, Pickens wants to see the nations automobile fuel be switched to natural gas, which, of course, is abundant in this country, and which he claims, is the best, most readily available fuel for our automotive infrastructure.
So, why, then, have I had a bad feeling about Pickens when I heard him talk about this. At various times, Pickens would say he was for an "all of the above" approach, yet, this was exactly the same approach McCain was advocating, yet we never saw Pickens get behind that, and, indeed, he seemed to poo poo McCain's plan, although it matched nearly exactly what Pickens was saying.
While not outright cheerleading for Obama, Pickens seemed to be favoring him, if in a slightly snarky manner. Last night, I saw Pickens again on Hannity & Colmes, and at one point he said that he like Obama because he was the only one talking about being energy independent in 10 years, as Pickens is proposing.
Now, I suspect Pickens isn't a stupid man, so he can't believe that Obama actually means this. Any idiot would know that Obama's promises are meaningless. He has no intention of ever doing anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and, it won't happen with Obama in charge of it.
Pickens seems to think that, for Obama to do this, it means he supports the natural gas as automotive fuel scenario, which Pickens sees as the only means to get to the 10 year point (and, which, I suspect, is Pickens' target for $). But, T. Boone, Obama is not going to allow the drilling required to get at those resources. He isn't going to allow drilling for oil, nor is he going to allow you to take natural gas out of the ground. Obama, if he thinks at all, thinks that we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through some kind of breakthrough in battery technology, which is a massive pipe dream, as is Obama's idea that we can conserve our way to energy independence (though, I suppose if Obama keeps us in a deep recession, he might be able to shrink us to independence).
So, what's Pickens' angle?
Curious what you think and will find out! I'll research more and report back!
Showing posts with label energy policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy policy. Show all posts
Friday, November 14, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Barack wants to wreck coal industry
You know what's "unbelievable?"
That we're on the verge of electing a guy who says this kind of crap, wants to bankrupt an industry (coal) that supplies 50% of our electricity to the altar of environmentalism, and actually believes it.
The press loves Obama. They may succeed in their mission to elect the most unqualified, dangerous, and radical man in American history.
YOU can stop them.
end...
That we're on the verge of electing a guy who says this kind of crap, wants to bankrupt an industry (coal) that supplies 50% of our electricity to the altar of environmentalism, and actually believes it.
The press loves Obama. They may succeed in their mission to elect the most unqualified, dangerous, and radical man in American history.
YOU can stop them.
end...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Nuclear Power - Why We Need a Real Energy Policy that Includes It
In response to this, I posted this (h/t The Sub Report), thought you might like to read:
"Thank you all for the reasoned comments, many obviously coming from people who have worked in the industry (Navy or civilian). Clearly, when McCain points to the Navy's record, it is a pretty impressive one.
"To dismiss nuclear power or delay it indefinitely, is tantamount to telling the American people that you don't care about the single most green, and readily available source of power today. When a candidate does that, we need to question his motives, and, in Obama's case, that means following the money, which will lead you to groups whose motives are not always about safe, clean energy, but something else. These range from Greenpeace on the radical left side (who want to end the Western way of life) to farmers on another side (who want to see corn-based, government-subsidized ethanol).
"Nuclear power is a threat to these groups, as it doesn't fit their agenda. Same for drilling for more oil and natural gas in this country. These technologies, which are available TODAY, will not be pursued by an Obama administration. Instead, we will get more years and years of research into (unlikely to help much) technologies like solar power, electric cars, and, of course, those same ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, energy costs will rise and our dependence on foreign oil will increase (yes, it could).
"Meanwhile, we could be switching transportation to a natural gas-based infrastructure, switching our electric grid to something more like 60% nuclear, 25% hydro/wind, and the rest natural gas/coal, and we could do this all with native resources, and probably make a good dent in 10 years, and be done in 25.
"But, if we never start, it won't happen. With Obama, it will never start. Mark my words (to quote a famous VP nominee)."
end..
"Thank you all for the reasoned comments, many obviously coming from people who have worked in the industry (Navy or civilian). Clearly, when McCain points to the Navy's record, it is a pretty impressive one.
"To dismiss nuclear power or delay it indefinitely, is tantamount to telling the American people that you don't care about the single most green, and readily available source of power today. When a candidate does that, we need to question his motives, and, in Obama's case, that means following the money, which will lead you to groups whose motives are not always about safe, clean energy, but something else. These range from Greenpeace on the radical left side (who want to end the Western way of life) to farmers on another side (who want to see corn-based, government-subsidized ethanol).
"Nuclear power is a threat to these groups, as it doesn't fit their agenda. Same for drilling for more oil and natural gas in this country. These technologies, which are available TODAY, will not be pursued by an Obama administration. Instead, we will get more years and years of research into (unlikely to help much) technologies like solar power, electric cars, and, of course, those same ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, energy costs will rise and our dependence on foreign oil will increase (yes, it could).
"Meanwhile, we could be switching transportation to a natural gas-based infrastructure, switching our electric grid to something more like 60% nuclear, 25% hydro/wind, and the rest natural gas/coal, and we could do this all with native resources, and probably make a good dent in 10 years, and be done in 25.
"But, if we never start, it won't happen. With Obama, it will never start. Mark my words (to quote a famous VP nominee)."
end..
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Georgia Senators Sell Out GOP and Us on Energy
Note: oil=oil and natural gas
Both my Senators, one of whom, Saxby Chambliss, is running for re-election, are behind the bad policy, bad politics "New Energy Reform Act" of 2008 in the gang of (now) 20. Needless to say, I let Sen. Chambliss know in my reply that should he continue his support of this rottenness, I would not be pulling the lever for him this year. I'll just sit out the GA senate race, I guess.
Marlo Lewis blogs over on NRO's Planet Gore why this is a rotten compromise, and I will add it is rotten politics, and saving the Democrats from themselves. The bill will be vetoed by President Bush, in effect getting NOTHING accomplished, but allowing Pelosi and the Dems to claim they did "something" and in a bi-partisan manner, to boot.
Of course, my senators don't seem to really care that this is a bad idea. Senator Chambliss had the courtesy, at least, to send me the talking points on why this is a good thing. If I were interested in a bi-partisan compromise that might actually get signed into law, and if this bill would bring quick relief, I might favor it as a first step to breaking down some other barriers. But, as Lewis points out, the bill will be vetoed, thus point 1 is no good, and the bill will not being quick relief, because the only areas it makes accessible are >50 miles off-shore. In his reply to me, Sen. Chambliss points out that we can set rigs at 50 and drill inward, but that takes time and will provide no immediate relief, even if it were to happen.
The bill, according to the Institute for Energy Research, most likely will add areas within 50 miles of Alaska's shoreline to the banned list (they are not today) and, it does not provide for revenue sharing with the Feds for those states that would be allowed to drill in the 50-100 mile range (NC, SC, VA, GA). So, little incentive for those states to support drilling offshore. The IER report concludes that this bill will open between 2-4B BBL of oil to exploration, but not the most easily accessible areas, and, makes the comparison that just opening 2000 acres of ANWR would yield 10B BBL of oil nearly immediately. When all is said and done, it looks like after this bill is done, more of the OCS areas will be banned than today.
Senator Isakson, I guess not being up for re-election, saw no need to provide a detailed reply.
Out of respect of the space on this blog, I am not posting Senator Chambliss's reply, nor my reply to him and Sen. Isakson. You'll have to settle for this as a summary.If you want to see those, comment me and I'll put in the comments.
Both my Senators, one of whom, Saxby Chambliss, is running for re-election, are behind the bad policy, bad politics "New Energy Reform Act" of 2008 in the gang of (now) 20. Needless to say, I let Sen. Chambliss know in my reply that should he continue his support of this rottenness, I would not be pulling the lever for him this year. I'll just sit out the GA senate race, I guess.
Marlo Lewis blogs over on NRO's Planet Gore why this is a rotten compromise, and I will add it is rotten politics, and saving the Democrats from themselves. The bill will be vetoed by President Bush, in effect getting NOTHING accomplished, but allowing Pelosi and the Dems to claim they did "something" and in a bi-partisan manner, to boot.
Of course, my senators don't seem to really care that this is a bad idea. Senator Chambliss had the courtesy, at least, to send me the talking points on why this is a good thing. If I were interested in a bi-partisan compromise that might actually get signed into law, and if this bill would bring quick relief, I might favor it as a first step to breaking down some other barriers. But, as Lewis points out, the bill will be vetoed, thus point 1 is no good, and the bill will not being quick relief, because the only areas it makes accessible are >50 miles off-shore. In his reply to me, Sen. Chambliss points out that we can set rigs at 50 and drill inward, but that takes time and will provide no immediate relief, even if it were to happen.
The bill, according to the Institute for Energy Research, most likely will add areas within 50 miles of Alaska's shoreline to the banned list (they are not today) and, it does not provide for revenue sharing with the Feds for those states that would be allowed to drill in the 50-100 mile range (NC, SC, VA, GA). So, little incentive for those states to support drilling offshore. The IER report concludes that this bill will open between 2-4B BBL of oil to exploration, but not the most easily accessible areas, and, makes the comparison that just opening 2000 acres of ANWR would yield 10B BBL of oil nearly immediately. When all is said and done, it looks like after this bill is done, more of the OCS areas will be banned than today.
Senator Isakson, I guess not being up for re-election, saw no need to provide a detailed reply.
Out of respect of the space on this blog, I am not posting Senator Chambliss's reply, nor my reply to him and Sen. Isakson. You'll have to settle for this as a summary.If you want to see those, comment me and I'll put in the comments.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
My rebuttal to a rebuttal on energy plans
From my co-worker who says he's a "moderate" in response to my energy policy comparison:
"The good news is at least this topic is getting some serious attention. Our lack of a robust energy policy is not only short sighted it is a huge national security issue.
"Some rebuttals:
"Gov. Palin calls oil company “windfall profits” tax a “clear and equitable share” tax. Last year she gave Alaskans an extra $1200 due to increased oil revenues. I guess McCain will put a stop to this?"
My reply:
Actually, the extra $1200 was to offset higher oil prices. Alaskans have received money from the state’s oil royalties since oil was discovered in 1976 on the North Slope. McCain can’t put a stop to this, since it’s a state decision, not a federal one (and sharing mineral revenue with the population is in the Alaskan Constitution). I’m okay if Obama wants to give me $1000. I’m not sending it back, but I think this move on the federal level is pandering for votes. At least in Alaska, where it’s cold and home heating oil is expensive, they can make a rational argument for giving the people more, in a one-time payment. Plus, what Palin did really isn’t the same as what Obama is proposing, as the source of the money is not a “windfall profits tax.” My understanding of ACES is that the money is coming in anyway, due to a restructuring of the tax, and this $1200 is just going to the people of Alaska, vice the state treasury. My reading of the facts could be wrong, but I think this article gives some explanation. Also, you can look at the actual description of the "Alaska Clear and Equitable Share" tax program on the State of Alaska’s web site.
He goes on:
"Higher MPG standards will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and will reduce emissions"
My reply:
I think I agreed with that statement. I also posited that an unintended consequence of higher fuel mileage standards might be to cause the prices of smaller vehicles to increase and lead people to hold on to their less efficient cars longer. McCain says he wants to more effectively penalize automakers for failing to comply with existing CAFÉ standards. Sort of like immigration, what’s the point of new laws if we don’t enforce the existing ones?
He continues:
"McCain’s $300m prize is just a gimmick since many companies are already working on better batteries and they will make a bunch of money on a market hungry for this technology. But hey, go for it dude."
My reply:
And an extra incentive might not be enough to spur development by some new entrepreneur? This has worked in the past in the aviation industry, why not try it with battery technology? Sure, it’s a gimmick, but $300M is small gimmick.
He says:
"The issue with oil company land leases is why do you want more when you aren’t using the ones you have?"
I say:
Oil companies pay for these leases, if they can’t get oil out economically, or they find that the reserves on the leased land are not worth the effort, they don’t drill. Plus, the bigger problem is that much of the known oil reserves are not on those leased lands, and many of the leases are in deep water areas, while the oil companies would prefer to drill in shallower-water areas that are not available to them now (these are parts of the acreage being held back by Congress). 97% of offshore areas are not leased, and 94% of onshore areas. How much oil do those contain, and when can we tap it? The clock won’t start at all if the Feds don’t move on leases.
Congress is welcome to say “Hey, Big Oil, you have leases that may be potentially valuable, but they will cost you more money than drilling in the other areas we’re holding back, but, hey, at $135/bbl, you can make it profitable, so go do it, pretend these other areas don’t exist.”
Congress can say that, and they’re welcome to, but I don’t think it’s a politically sound judgement for them. But, hey, they’re democrats, they can do what they want.
He says:
"The whole “drill here, drill now” thing is another gimmick since: 1) It will be years before any new oil sources hit the market,"
I say:
The clock ticks with every passing day….but, if you believe that oil speculators have anything to do with the run-up in prices, then signaling an intent to drill , without even taking one bbl of oil out of the ground, would have an impact on speculators(and, indeed, it has). The fact that something takes time used as a reason NOT to act? Is this conversation at your house, Mama: “Honey, I want to have a baby.” Daddy: “Oh, honey, I’m sorry, but it takes 9 months, when they have the technology to deliver that baby tomorrow, then we’ll do it.”
He says:
"2) All the best estimates are the US has only a small fraction of the reserves compared to our demand"
I reply:
We don’t have to satisfy all our oil needs to have a measurable impact on the market. Granted, we have to add to the world market a significant amount of oil to move the price meter, but we don’t have to be self-sufficient, though it would be nice to be able to theoretically say we could supply all of our energy needs, which is what we’re shooting for anyway Why not get the oil that is recoverable out as soon as possible, while we pursue other avenues – cellulosic ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel? What’s the harm in that? Those technologies will not be widely exploited overnight, either.
He says:
"3) New US oil supplies will go on the open market to the highest bidder so US oil will not necessarily go into US cars."
I say:
The highest bid will be less with more supply. But, I agree (I think) with your point, the thought that we’re going to close the walls and be self-sufficient and charge $0.25/gal is idiocy. But, we can affect the price of oil by adding to the supply.
"The good news is at least this topic is getting some serious attention. Our lack of a robust energy policy is not only short sighted it is a huge national security issue.
"Some rebuttals:
"Gov. Palin calls oil company “windfall profits” tax a “clear and equitable share” tax. Last year she gave Alaskans an extra $1200 due to increased oil revenues. I guess McCain will put a stop to this?"
My reply:
Actually, the extra $1200 was to offset higher oil prices. Alaskans have received money from the state’s oil royalties since oil was discovered in 1976 on the North Slope. McCain can’t put a stop to this, since it’s a state decision, not a federal one (and sharing mineral revenue with the population is in the Alaskan Constitution). I’m okay if Obama wants to give me $1000. I’m not sending it back, but I think this move on the federal level is pandering for votes. At least in Alaska, where it’s cold and home heating oil is expensive, they can make a rational argument for giving the people more, in a one-time payment. Plus, what Palin did really isn’t the same as what Obama is proposing, as the source of the money is not a “windfall profits tax.” My understanding of ACES is that the money is coming in anyway, due to a restructuring of the tax, and this $1200 is just going to the people of Alaska, vice the state treasury. My reading of the facts could be wrong, but I think this article gives some explanation. Also, you can look at the actual description of the "Alaska Clear and Equitable Share" tax program on the State of Alaska’s web site.
He goes on:
"Higher MPG standards will improve our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and will reduce emissions"
My reply:
I think I agreed with that statement. I also posited that an unintended consequence of higher fuel mileage standards might be to cause the prices of smaller vehicles to increase and lead people to hold on to their less efficient cars longer. McCain says he wants to more effectively penalize automakers for failing to comply with existing CAFÉ standards. Sort of like immigration, what’s the point of new laws if we don’t enforce the existing ones?
He continues:
"McCain’s $300m prize is just a gimmick since many companies are already working on better batteries and they will make a bunch of money on a market hungry for this technology. But hey, go for it dude."
My reply:
And an extra incentive might not be enough to spur development by some new entrepreneur? This has worked in the past in the aviation industry, why not try it with battery technology? Sure, it’s a gimmick, but $300M is small gimmick.
He says:
"The issue with oil company land leases is why do you want more when you aren’t using the ones you have?"
I say:
Oil companies pay for these leases, if they can’t get oil out economically, or they find that the reserves on the leased land are not worth the effort, they don’t drill. Plus, the bigger problem is that much of the known oil reserves are not on those leased lands, and many of the leases are in deep water areas, while the oil companies would prefer to drill in shallower-water areas that are not available to them now (these are parts of the acreage being held back by Congress). 97% of offshore areas are not leased, and 94% of onshore areas. How much oil do those contain, and when can we tap it? The clock won’t start at all if the Feds don’t move on leases.
Congress is welcome to say “Hey, Big Oil, you have leases that may be potentially valuable, but they will cost you more money than drilling in the other areas we’re holding back, but, hey, at $135/bbl, you can make it profitable, so go do it, pretend these other areas don’t exist.”
Congress can say that, and they’re welcome to, but I don’t think it’s a politically sound judgement for them. But, hey, they’re democrats, they can do what they want.
He says:
"The whole “drill here, drill now” thing is another gimmick since: 1) It will be years before any new oil sources hit the market,"
I say:
The clock ticks with every passing day….but, if you believe that oil speculators have anything to do with the run-up in prices, then signaling an intent to drill , without even taking one bbl of oil out of the ground, would have an impact on speculators(and, indeed, it has). The fact that something takes time used as a reason NOT to act? Is this conversation at your house, Mama: “Honey, I want to have a baby.” Daddy: “Oh, honey, I’m sorry, but it takes 9 months, when they have the technology to deliver that baby tomorrow, then we’ll do it.”
He says:
"2) All the best estimates are the US has only a small fraction of the reserves compared to our demand"
I reply:
We don’t have to satisfy all our oil needs to have a measurable impact on the market. Granted, we have to add to the world market a significant amount of oil to move the price meter, but we don’t have to be self-sufficient, though it would be nice to be able to theoretically say we could supply all of our energy needs, which is what we’re shooting for anyway Why not get the oil that is recoverable out as soon as possible, while we pursue other avenues – cellulosic ethanol, natural gas, biodiesel? What’s the harm in that? Those technologies will not be widely exploited overnight, either.
He says:
"3) New US oil supplies will go on the open market to the highest bidder so US oil will not necessarily go into US cars."
I say:
The highest bid will be less with more supply. But, I agree (I think) with your point, the thought that we’re going to close the walls and be self-sufficient and charge $0.25/gal is idiocy. But, we can affect the price of oil by adding to the supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)