Jude 2

http://www.pickensplan.com

Have you heard of this yet.

It is a plan to reduce the nations foriegn oil consumption by utilizing natural gas.

Yes, it has been all over the radio here and I have even heard him on a commercial that he paid for. This is what we need; business men doing good business.

We still need the oil futures market to be regulated though so we can get the price down asap.

The commercial almost sounded like Pickens was running for president.

Sounds too easy.

And, that's the problem for me. If it was that easy, either we're the stupidest people on the planet or we have the absolutely most corrupt group of government and corporate leaders on it. It may be both. But, for now, I'm waiting to hear the naysayers and their reasons why Pickens is wrong. If I hear a lot of "it just can't be done" or other non-substantive responses, I'll probably give him a lot more credit. So, the Limbaughs of the world need to step up and give more than sophistry and platitudes and smirky dismissals or credibility attacks on Pickens personally. I want information and argument on WHY this is wrong or WHY it won't work. I'm probably going to be easy to convince about it since, as I said, it seems too easy ---- but at least give it treatment as a serious proposal and treat people who do want information with some respect by battling this on that front instead of the simply rhetorical battle lines on which almost every other issue seems to get addressed.

His wind farm that is under construction will produce enough power to light up about 1 million homes. This is the draw back. Something this large and expansive, the largest wind farm in the US, will only power enough homes for like 1% of the US homes.

How large is large in this case, though? 1% is a lot of homes! And, his 1% capacity is in one little place in the middle of nowhere Texas. Can it be any less conspicuous than a nuclear plant (which I love) or a hydroelectric dam (which, again, living in TVA-Land, I love)? Browns Ferry, which was once the world's largest nuke plant, is about 8 miles from where I sit (as a crow flies). It doesn't produce enough power to light 1% of our nation's homes. There are 104 nuke plants in the US that, together, provide 20% of our electricity nationwide. So, even a large nuke plant is likely only to provide a little more than 1% of one-fifth of our electricity. Is a large wind farm of the type that Pickens is building going to be more onerous in terms of space-grabbing than about 5 nuke plants? And, if so, is the worst argument against wind energy on this scale the fact that it is just so spacious?? I don't know. Someone tell me.

I haven't seen photos so I can't say what it looks like. 1% of homes is much different than 1% of our power needs. Businesses use much more power than homes. Industries use so much more power than homes and commercial businesses. I am all for this but the reality is that not every home can be powered with such. It is a great thing though and these things can definitely be used in areas like Texas and the West.

Full Quiver wrote:I haven't seen photos so I can't say what it looks like. 1% of homes is much different than 1% of our power needs. Businesses use much more power than homes. Industries use so much more power than homes and commercial businesses. I am all for this but the reality is that not every home can be powered with such. It is a great thing though and these things can definitely be used in areas like Texas and the West.

I'm with you that I don't think that every home can be powered by wind. But, that's a sort of common sense, instinctive thing and not based on hard fact data. That's what I want us to see.

We need to diversify the way we meet our energy needs. Wind farms are great. Solar is great. We need more hydro plants and dams. We need new nuclear plants (Yes, I said it). We need to be spending LOTS of money researching nuclear cold fusion. We need clean burning coal plants. Natural gas. Hydro cars. Fuel cells. And, yes, (DOMESTIC) fossil fuel. But we need to cut our heavy dependence on foreign fossil fuel.

What's standing in the way of all of these options? The so called "environmental movement". Can't have nuclear plants. They might melt down. Can't have coal because you have to mine for it. Can't have more dams cause you might alter a wetland and wipe out a rare species of mosquito. Heck, I even saw a report the other day that a SOLAR CELL farm was being put on hold so that the greenies could examine the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT of the farm. WHAT POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS THERE IN COLLECTING THE SUN'S RAYS?

Because now someone might actually make a dime off of it.

I'm all for nukes also. The safety that goes into building a nuke is phenomenal not to mention the safety around a running nuke. France, a highly liberal nation need I remind you, has all kinds of nukes and never has had a meltdown.

Dams provide lots of energy, places for wildlife to live and feed (fish live in lakes and are actually put there by wildlife people), and all sorts of entertainment and recreation takes place because of dams (fishing, boating, parks, etc.). Of course many jobs are created in the building process and the management of both the dam and the lake itself.

Yes, I grew up within just a few miles of 2-3 nuclear plants, it's not a big issue, I had a friend (and fellow church member) that worked in one. They are probably one of the more clean and safe options we have, BUT it's the fear of Chernoble (I lived around those plants when that happened). I don't believe the same safety precautions were required there as are here in the US, and even ours became more strict after that happened.

I hear them say we've got enough oil in Alaska alone to take us off the foreign oil hook. Now, that assumes that every bit of oil we'd get there would only be sold to us, but that's not going to happen. It'll all go on the open market. I don't know that that helps us so much.

My bigger question is who is right? Is there really enough accessible oil in America to wean us from foreign oil, as commentators say (and I heard on Hannity just today)? Or, is Pickens telling the truth that peak oil is passed and we really cannot "drill our way out" from the crisis of supply and it's only going to get worse if we don't find alternatives??

Which one of them is objectively telling the truth? Does anyone even know what the truth is??

Pastor Bill wrote:Yes, I grew up within just a few miles of 2-3 nuclear plants, it's not a big issue, I had a friend (and fellow church member) that worked in one. They are probably one of the more clean and safe options we have, BUT it's the fear of Chernoble (I lived around those plants when that happened). I don't believe the same safety precautions were required there as are here in the US, and even ours became more strict after that happened.

I understand a fear of Chernoble....BUT as you already stated....this is the US....we have much stricter regulations!!

I say "light'em up boys" and if we lose some "rare mosquito" who cares!

Full Quiver wrote:
Of course many jobs are created in the building process and the management of both the dam and the lake itself.

Good point. Building the infrastructure for all of these energy sources would create good paying jobs and stimulate the economy.

It's too late for Bush to do but if the next prez wants his name in the history books for something good then he will see to it that these alternate means are put into play. He will have the govt. fund or subsidize these projects which will stimulate economies locally and nationally for decades to come. People like Eisenhower (interstates), Roosevelt, Kennedy (space) all started big projects that made for great jobs and lots of long term work.