Just saw Pickens new commercial and.......?

Question

went to his site to see what he's all about. Independent from what you think about AGW; what do you think about his plan?

I personally liked what he said, that when it comes to the debate of drilling domestically he believes we should drill, but that we will still be dependent on foreign oil. Because of that we are going to need to develop new technologies such as wind (what he is mainly pushing), solar, natural gas etc. What I mainly got is that we need to build a bridge to those new technologies, and in essence have domestic oil hold us over until the new tech is here in a more economically viable way.

So, independently from what you may believe when it comes to AGW, what do you think about Pickens plan, drilling and how much do you think the government should get involved in business and free market?

Answer 1

energy independence is a hot button issue that both candidates are dancing around, but both are not going all out to really solve our future energy needs. McCain's plan is better than obamas in that it allows for more options, and helps provide time to develop and bring to market real alternative energy. mccain wants to drill for more oil here in america where the oil is, rather than buy it from countries that for the most part don't like us. that will buy us time in the short and intermediate terms(through the next 50-100 years). he also wants us to build more nuclear power plants. france gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear power, should we do any less? mccain wants us to use clean coal as well for energy. europe is right now building new coal liquefaction plants to make gasoline and diesel. again why are we not taking advantage of this technology? china is building new coal fired power plants all over their country.

as for obama, he wants alternative energy on the market today despite the fact that there is no infrastructure in place, and that it will cost many trillions of dollars to build the infrastructure. he wants 1 million electric cars on the road in six years, a nice ideal but the people don't want cars that have a limited range and long recharge times. personally if someone came out with an electric car that had a 200 mile range and could be recharged in 20-30 minutes, i would buy one. that car would be a feasible mode of transportation in that you could legitimately drive from say LA to new york in about 6 days. obama is currently pandering to those people who want more domestic drilling, but the reality is that he wont allow it to happen. obama wants to put a wind fall profits tax on the oil companies, but then gas prices will go up, which is what he wants. he has said a few times that he thinks that gasoline should be $12 per gallon. obamas energy plan is limited at best.

as for mr pickens, his motives are not as altruistic as he would have you believe. he is spending money to build wind farms so that when congress offers incentives to produce wind power, he will reap those incentives. as stated he also owns large numbers of land tracts that have a large amount on natural gas buried in them. remember he was an oil man at one time, and he knows that crude oil is limited in its supply, and he is reaching for the future so that his family will continue to make money. i have no issue with that, but eh should at least be honest about it.

Answer 2

We don't need to be completely energy independent.  Trade makes us stronger and with a global economy it's a good thing.

Also, when Pickens says we are transfering wealth, he's lying and should know better.  We are just trading.  Admittedly we could provide for ourselves more and that's also good, but there's nothing wrong with buying energy overseas.

Unfortunately, wind only provides about 1% of our energy needs and those turbines are unreliable as well as dangerous to the environment.  Did you see that one in Denmark that just exploded from strong winds?  Search on Youtube for the video.  It's incredible.

Drilling is part of the solution because we can't ever get away from oil.  If we quit using it as a fuel for cars and planes, we'd still need billions of barrels just for all the plastics and asphalt we use.  Not to mention clothing, cosmetics and medicines.  Besides, we have trillions of barrels of untapped sources in the US.  We just need the obstacles to be removed so we can get at it.

Note that Pickens is looking out for himself mostly.  That's not a bad thing, but understand that when you listen to him talk.  Also note that Pelosi is invested in his plan and that explains why she and most other Democrats are dead against drilling.  Keeping gas prices high is beneficial to them.

Oh, and the reason the oil companies don't drill much on leased lands is because of the constant lawsuits from environmentalists.  They are the real enemies of the environment and the economy.  The oil companies are the only ones with solutions right now, so let's quit blaming them for high prices.

Remember, they only make 8 cents a gallon while the government makes at least 13 cents on every gallon sold.  And the government doesn't have to invest in research and development.  They just take the money and pass the blame.

So Nuclear is still a great solution, but don't forget that coal is very abundant and there are some very clean ways of getting energy from coal these days.

Answer 3

From what I have seen so far McCain while not up on the latest ideas about energy is several generations ahead of Obama who is against anything but coal, oil and gas for generation. McCain does realize that drilling more is only a band aid to get more nuclear on line fast so we will have that to hold the line while orbital solar stations are constructed and put on line. Obama it seems is just another anti tech Luddite who would hold back the real solutions to energy independence just like his mentor Jimmy Carter did 30 years ago.

McCain does at least recognize the need for new high tech answers to our energy future and realizes we need to act now to prevent disaster 10 years down the road. Remember if it had not been for the Carter edicts 30 years ago our current middle east and energy crisis would be non existent, his edicts caused all of our social, economic, energy and military crisis we face today. Democrats do not have the vision to make decisions long term because they depend for ideas on last weeks popularity polls, not what the nations needs will be in the next generation. Remember the office sign about plan ahead with the final letters shrunken and distorted, well that is how democrats plan!

Answer 4

I like the wind power part of Pickens' plan.  The natural gas part I don't like.  Frankly, the only reason it's part of his plan is because he owns a ton of land with natural gas reserves.

The oil part is new.  His plan didn't use to even mention drilling.  I don't think it's really worth talking about.  We're going to drill for oil domestically regardless.  Increasing offshore drilling is a drop in the bucket.  Right now oil companies have available for leasing and development 40.92 billion barrels of offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico.  So far they've only developed 7 billion of them.  Increasing offshore drilling, since California darn well isn't going to allow it, will increase potential reserves by about 8 billion barrels.  What's the point when there are already 34 billion barrels worth in undeveloped areas?

http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/10/th...

As for the election, Obama will solve our energy problems, McCain will not.  McCain's entire solution is drill drill drill and nuclear nuclear nuclear.  It takes way too long to build new nuclear power plants and they're way too expensive (and oil is not a long-term solution) for that to be a good plan.

Obama has said he's willing to compromise on offshore drilling in order to fund renewable energies.  Many times McCain has basically said he thinks renewable energy technology is vitually worthless.  Frankly, I think he's just out of touch with reality.

*edit* No, oil can't play a larger role in our energy production.  Right now it only accounts for something like 2% of our power production.  You want to see gas prices get *really* high?  Start using more oil for energy production.

*edit2* I very much disagree with Bestonne on the subject of wind.  With regards to solar, there's enough solar energy in the Southwest to power all of the USA, using solar thermal or even photovoltaic technology.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/16...

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sci...

Answer 5

All that Picken's wind farms will do is increase demand for natural gas (since that's what is best suited to backing up wind) while fooling people into believing that they don't need nuclear (regardless of how long it'll take to build the power plants (and a lot of improvement could be made there), there's nothing else that can do the job).  There's also the fact that the best power plants for backing up wind (other than pumped hydro) just so happen to be simple cycle gas plants, converting the back up of wind power to combined cycle and getting rid of the wind turbines would probably reduce CO2 emissions.

Wind probably can't even handle 5% of the US power needs (and even a lot of wind proponents are saying 20% is the limit).

It doesn't look like either US presidential candidate will solve the problems, at least not with the plans they have (McCain is only proposing a tenth of what is needed) so they'll probably end up changing their mind once in power, Obama does seem to be less anti-science than McCain so he'd be my pick for that reason (but I'm not a yank so I don't get a say in the matter of whether the rest of the world catches cold).

Answer 6

Let me start by saying Im glad to see that you chose energy to test these candidates and not wedge issues like g*y marriage or abortion rights...those that hold these wedge issues as the main, or sometimes only, determinate, I deem ignorant and sheepish at best.  Now, let's look at the issue of domestic drilling.  We, the US, have approximately 3% of the world's reserves but use approximately 20%-25% of all that is refined now...and we won't see  a single drop of this domestic oil, if we started actually drilling today, for another 10-years maybe 8-years at best.  What percentage of the oil produced domestically now do you think actually get used by us here at home?  A surprisingly small amount believe it or not...most are sold elsewhere for a higher profit...not only that, one of the main issues that was holding up the current legislature to allow domestic drilling hinges on the US oil companies not wanting to allow the government to dictate who the oil gets sold to...in other words, oil companies are putting on an public opinion blitz to turn the public opinion in favor of new domestic oil drilling (esp. in Anwar, Alaska and off your favorite coast line) to take advantage of our disgust with rising energy costs...but it won't make a dent in what is really going on and the only ones that really benefit are the oil companies who are determined to milk this addiction to oil for all it's worth before they and their oil become obsolete.

Bottomline.  Domestic drilling will only make a psychological difference and nothing more.  Taking the federal tax off of oil will save you, literally , pennies.  We need to start getting off of this stuff now...considering the regions of the world where most of the oil is located, becoming energy independent is not only an enviromental or energy issue.  It is literally a matter of national security at the highest level...It's the new industry, this can be the new dotcom for the new generation.

All of this seem to make sense to us and for a while now but unfortunately we had many in positions of power that had the most to gain by the current state of things...I don't think it's an accident...what they didn't take into account however, is the adaptive nature of man and that through all of this b.s., through all that is tangently worse because of higher energy costs (food, travel, etc.), we will come out the other end with a new industry, new policies, new way of living....or else.