By now, you may have heard of T. Boone Pickens plan. If not, click the link and follow the jump to read about it.
Not too long ago my friend forwarded me the link and asked me my opinion on it. That’s a dangerous thing and not too dissimilar from sticking a live possum down your pants, but I digress.
Now I’d like to present you with several long reads:
Friday, August 29, 2008
Pickens Plan Pt 1
This is the response I had to reading the initial outline of Pickens plan on his website.
Thanks for the link. Jenny was telling me about this the other day, but I hadn't seen it as of yet. I didn't look all through his stuff, but checked out the main video and some of the supporting documentation.
I've been an advocate of exploring alternative energy sources and drilling in the U.S. to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. No matter what you do (drill or alternative) this is not something that is going to go away quickly. I want to make sure I address that because I think a lot of people hear "we need to drill!" and they think that means that the problem will abate itself immediately. Not so.
So, I agree with Mr. Pickens that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it will take time to develop. But, let me explore that briefly and for a few moments:
His math doesn't quite work out and is flawed in a major capacity. Pickens advocates taking natural gas away from the power plants and substituting it for wind energy (22%). This plan assumes that the wind blows constantly and all the time. This doesn't work. It blows too hard, or not hard enough. This means you can only utilize turbines about 20% of the time. Surprisingly enough this is the case most of the time meaning that while we can derive energy from wind it is not going to give us enough consistent energy to pull the 20% away from natural gas. Suddenly there is a jump that says if we can get 20% utilization from turbines we can substitute it for 20% of natural gas. I haven't ran the numbers but I don't know if you can evenly swap that power or not (i.e. natural gas may have a much higher efficiency rating, and I bet it does which means it might take three or four times as much power from wind to yield the same power as that of natural gas). Power plants burning natural gas cannot completely alleviate their dependence on gas simply by using wind power. All wind powered plants rely on another form of fuel that can ramp up quickly as an energy source when wind power is not available (nuclear is not an option here). As soon as you realize this, his plan starts to fall apart. It doesn't mean it can't work at all, but not at the scale he's alluding to.
Now let's hit the second part of the plan which has flaws. Natural gas is a pretty good alternative form of fuel for cars but today we don't have the infrastructure to support it on a wide scale. This can be overcome in 10 years time. You also have an enormous expense of the auto manufacturers to re-tool and re-design the vehicles. Again, this can be overcome in time. Pickens indicates this and I agree with it. But, people aren't going to go out and get rid of their cars (or convert them) at some cost just to go to natural gas. The average lifespan of a car in the U.S. is about 18 years. So figure that even if the infrastructure became prevalent you would have a potential 20+ year time span before cars stopped burning gasoline (infrastructure+conversion+new cars+deprecation of old cars).
And what do you think is going to happen to natural gas as the demand goes up?
The last part of the plan is also flawed math. How does he arrive at 38% reduction in foreign oil from a 20% substitution of natural gas? He doesn't say and I don't know how he does it. For one thing, most people are under the false impression that our cars are the primary users of oil / gasoline. But that isn't true. It's diesel for things like trucks (still a small percentage) and power generation. Again, how he gets at a 38% reduction I have no idea and he doesn't elaborate. Perhaps the math is buried in the web site somewhere.
And let us not forget, environmentalists are already fighting wind farms all over the U.S. The government has even ceased erecting any more wind farms until an environmental impact study has been completed. Even if they are allowed to build them the costs of wind mill farms is enormous. Europe has been building these and doing the ROI for years and what they have found is that it is fataly flawed and costs FAR more (i.e. 10 times more) than they anticipated per mwh (megawat hour). They are still pushing forward and continue to build them out so that they know the true ROI / economic impact, which I think is a good idea. Sometime you have to break a few eggs to bake a cake.
Pickens says it's a blueprint. I say it's a good idea but that it needs more planning and a more qualified level of expectations (i.e. this isn't going to solve our problems right away, it may create new ones, and it may not even work as well as he indicates).
BTW - I don't have the definitive answer. I am not sure anyone does. Again, I do feel very strongly about developing oil in the U.S. and continuing to seek alternative forms of energy. We need this type of thinking (Pickens) to help move us along.
My friends weren’t real impressed with my initial thoughts. Many of them railed on me asking “don’t you think he’s already thought of all this?” and “clearly he’s an intelligent man, you must be missing something.”
Perhaps this is all true. My general response was that I indeed think that they have thought about this, but that they still haven’t produced the numbers, methodologies, etc. to back it up as anything more than theory.
Thanks for the link. Jenny was telling me about this the other day, but I hadn't seen it as of yet. I didn't look all through his stuff, but checked out the main video and some of the supporting documentation.
I've been an advocate of exploring alternative energy sources and drilling in the U.S. to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. No matter what you do (drill or alternative) this is not something that is going to go away quickly. I want to make sure I address that because I think a lot of people hear "we need to drill!" and they think that means that the problem will abate itself immediately. Not so.
So, I agree with Mr. Pickens that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and it will take time to develop. But, let me explore that briefly and for a few moments:
His math doesn't quite work out and is flawed in a major capacity. Pickens advocates taking natural gas away from the power plants and substituting it for wind energy (22%). This plan assumes that the wind blows constantly and all the time. This doesn't work. It blows too hard, or not hard enough. This means you can only utilize turbines about 20% of the time. Surprisingly enough this is the case most of the time meaning that while we can derive energy from wind it is not going to give us enough consistent energy to pull the 20% away from natural gas. Suddenly there is a jump that says if we can get 20% utilization from turbines we can substitute it for 20% of natural gas. I haven't ran the numbers but I don't know if you can evenly swap that power or not (i.e. natural gas may have a much higher efficiency rating, and I bet it does which means it might take three or four times as much power from wind to yield the same power as that of natural gas). Power plants burning natural gas cannot completely alleviate their dependence on gas simply by using wind power. All wind powered plants rely on another form of fuel that can ramp up quickly as an energy source when wind power is not available (nuclear is not an option here). As soon as you realize this, his plan starts to fall apart. It doesn't mean it can't work at all, but not at the scale he's alluding to.
Now let's hit the second part of the plan which has flaws. Natural gas is a pretty good alternative form of fuel for cars but today we don't have the infrastructure to support it on a wide scale. This can be overcome in 10 years time. You also have an enormous expense of the auto manufacturers to re-tool and re-design the vehicles. Again, this can be overcome in time. Pickens indicates this and I agree with it. But, people aren't going to go out and get rid of their cars (or convert them) at some cost just to go to natural gas. The average lifespan of a car in the U.S. is about 18 years. So figure that even if the infrastructure became prevalent you would have a potential 20+ year time span before cars stopped burning gasoline (infrastructure+conversion+new cars+deprecation of old cars).
And what do you think is going to happen to natural gas as the demand goes up?
The last part of the plan is also flawed math. How does he arrive at 38% reduction in foreign oil from a 20% substitution of natural gas? He doesn't say and I don't know how he does it. For one thing, most people are under the false impression that our cars are the primary users of oil / gasoline. But that isn't true. It's diesel for things like trucks (still a small percentage) and power generation. Again, how he gets at a 38% reduction I have no idea and he doesn't elaborate. Perhaps the math is buried in the web site somewhere.
And let us not forget, environmentalists are already fighting wind farms all over the U.S. The government has even ceased erecting any more wind farms until an environmental impact study has been completed. Even if they are allowed to build them the costs of wind mill farms is enormous. Europe has been building these and doing the ROI for years and what they have found is that it is fataly flawed and costs FAR more (i.e. 10 times more) than they anticipated per mwh (megawat hour). They are still pushing forward and continue to build them out so that they know the true ROI / economic impact, which I think is a good idea. Sometime you have to break a few eggs to bake a cake.
Pickens says it's a blueprint. I say it's a good idea but that it needs more planning and a more qualified level of expectations (i.e. this isn't going to solve our problems right away, it may create new ones, and it may not even work as well as he indicates).
BTW - I don't have the definitive answer. I am not sure anyone does. Again, I do feel very strongly about developing oil in the U.S. and continuing to seek alternative forms of energy. We need this type of thinking (Pickens) to help move us along.
My friends weren’t real impressed with my initial thoughts. Many of them railed on me asking “don’t you think he’s already thought of all this?” and “clearly he’s an intelligent man, you must be missing something.”
Perhaps this is all true. My general response was that I indeed think that they have thought about this, but that they still haven’t produced the numbers, methodologies, etc. to back it up as anything more than theory.
Pickens Plan Pt. 2
It was about a month later that my father uncovered this article (sorry, no original link). I always figured that there had to be a vested interest in Pickens plan that went beyond simply “saving the good ‘ol USA.” The plan begins to become far more clear. What’s really disturbing is that it’s the typical sneaky, underhanded, crap you’d expect from a rich guy and the government.
Pickens Gives New Meaning to 'Self-Government'
By Steven Milloy
July 31, 2008
The more you learn about T. Boone Pickens’ plan to switch America to wind power, the more you realize that he seems willing to say and do just about anything to make another billion or two.
This column previously discussed the plan’s technical and economic shortcomings and marketing ruses. Today, we’ll look into the diabolical machinations behind it.
Simply put, Pickens’ pitch is “embrace wind power to help break our ‘addiction’ to foreign oil.” There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens’ plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.
Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there’s more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here’s where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.
Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won’t sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens’ route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain? Are you sitting down?
At Pickens’ behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens’ wife and the manager of Pickens’ nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel’s three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens’ employees.
A member of a local water conservation board told Bloomberg News that, “[Pickens has] obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It’s supposed to be for the public good, not a private company.”
What’s this got to do with Pickens’ wind-power plan? Just as he needs pipelines to sell his water, he also needs transmission lines to sell his wind-generated power. Rights of way for transmission lines are also acquired through eminent domain -- and, once again, the Texas legislature has come to Pickens’ aid.
Earlier this year, Texas changed its law to allow renewable energy projects (like Pickens’ wind farm) to obtain rights-of-way by piggybacking on a water district’s eminent domain power. So Pickens can now use his water district’s authority to also condemn land for his future wind farm’s transmission lines.
Who will pay for the rights-of-way and the transmission lines and pipelines? Thanks to another gift from Texas politicians, Pickens’ water district can sell tax-free, taxpayer-guaranteed municipal bonds to finance the $2.2 billion cost of the water pipeline. And then earlier this month, the Texas legislature voted to spend $4.93 billion for wind farm transmission lines. While Pickens has denied that this money is earmarked for him, he nevertheless is building the largest wind farm in the world.
Despite this legislative largesse, a fly in the ointment remains.
Although Pickens hopes to sell as much as $165 million worth of water annually to Dallas alone, no city in Texas has signed up yet -- partly because they don’t yet need the water and partly because of resentment against water profiteering.
Enter the Sierra Club.
While Green groups support wind power, “the privatization of water is an entirely different thing,” says the Sierra Club. Moreover, the activist group has long opposed further exploitation of the very groundwater Pickens wants to use -- the Ogallala Aquifer.
“The source of drinking water and irrigation for Plains residents from Nebraska to Texas, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of the world's largest -- as well as one of the most rapidly dissipating… If current irrigation practices continue, agribusiness will deplete the Ogallala Aquifer in the next century,” says the Sierra Club.
In March 2002, the Sierra Club opposed the construction of a slaughterhouse in Pampa, Texas, because it would require a mere 275 million gallons per year from the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet Pickens wants to sell 65 billion gallons of water per year -- to Dallas alone. In a 2004 lamentation about local government facilitation of Pickens’ plan for the Ogallala, the Sierra Club slammed Pickens as a “junk bond dealer” who wanted to make “Blue Gold” from the Ogallala.
But while the Sierra Club can’t seem to do anything about Pickens’ influence with state legislators, they do have enough influence to make his water politically unpotable. This opposition may soon abate, however, now that Pickens has buddied up with Sierra Club president Carl Pope.
As noted last week, Pope now flies in Pickens’ private jet and publicly lauds him. The two are newly-minted “friends,” since Pope needs the famous Republican oilman to lend propaganda value to the Sierra Club’s anti-oil agenda and Pickens needs Pope to ease up on the Ogallala water opposition.
This alliance isn’t sitting well with everyone on the Left.
A TreeHugger.com writer recently observed, “… I am left asking myself why the green media have neglected [the water] aspect of Pickens’ wind-farm plans? Have we been so distracted by the prospect of Texas’ renewable energy portfolio growing by 4000 megawatts that we are willing to overlook some potentially dodgy aspects to the project?”
It shouldn’t sit well with the rest of us either. Pickens has gamed Texas for his own ends, and now he’s trying to game the rest of us, too. Worse, his gamesmanship includes lending his billionaire resources, prominent stature and feudal powers bestowed upon him by the Texas legislature to help the Greens gain control over the U.S. energy supply.
Pickens Gives New Meaning to 'Self-Government'
By Steven Milloy
July 31, 2008
The more you learn about T. Boone Pickens’ plan to switch America to wind power, the more you realize that he seems willing to say and do just about anything to make another billion or two.
This column previously discussed the plan’s technical and economic shortcomings and marketing ruses. Today, we’ll look into the diabolical machinations behind it.
Simply put, Pickens’ pitch is “embrace wind power to help break our ‘addiction’ to foreign oil.” There is, however, another intriguing component to Pickens’ plan that goes unmentioned in his TV commercials, media interviews and web site -- water rights, which he owns more of than any other American.
Pickens hopes that his recent $100 million investment in 200,000 acres worth of groundwater rights in Roberts County, Texas, located over the Ogallala Aquifer, will earn him $1 billion. But there’s more to earning such a profit than simply acquiring the water. Rights-of-way must be purchased to install pipelines, and opposition from anti-development environmental groups must be overcome. Here’s where it gets interesting, according to information compiled by the Water Research Group, a small grassroots group focusing on local water issues in Texas.
Purchasing rights-of-way is often expensive and time-consuming -- and what if landowners won’t sell? While private entities may be frustrated, governments can exercise eminent domain to compel sales. This is Pickens’ route of choice. But wait, you say, Pickens is not a government entity. How can he use eminent domain? Are you sitting down?
At Pickens’ behest, the Texas legislature changed state law to allow the two residents of an 8-acre parcel of land in Roberts County to vote to create a municipal water district, a government agency with eminent domain powers. Who were the voters? They were Pickens’ wife and the manager of Pickens’ nearby ranch. And who sits on the board of directors of this water district? They are the parcel’s three other non-resident landowners, all Pickens’ employees.
A member of a local water conservation board told Bloomberg News that, “[Pickens has] obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It’s supposed to be for the public good, not a private company.”
What’s this got to do with Pickens’ wind-power plan? Just as he needs pipelines to sell his water, he also needs transmission lines to sell his wind-generated power. Rights of way for transmission lines are also acquired through eminent domain -- and, once again, the Texas legislature has come to Pickens’ aid.
Earlier this year, Texas changed its law to allow renewable energy projects (like Pickens’ wind farm) to obtain rights-of-way by piggybacking on a water district’s eminent domain power. So Pickens can now use his water district’s authority to also condemn land for his future wind farm’s transmission lines.
Who will pay for the rights-of-way and the transmission lines and pipelines? Thanks to another gift from Texas politicians, Pickens’ water district can sell tax-free, taxpayer-guaranteed municipal bonds to finance the $2.2 billion cost of the water pipeline. And then earlier this month, the Texas legislature voted to spend $4.93 billion for wind farm transmission lines. While Pickens has denied that this money is earmarked for him, he nevertheless is building the largest wind farm in the world.
Despite this legislative largesse, a fly in the ointment remains.
Although Pickens hopes to sell as much as $165 million worth of water annually to Dallas alone, no city in Texas has signed up yet -- partly because they don’t yet need the water and partly because of resentment against water profiteering.
Enter the Sierra Club.
While Green groups support wind power, “the privatization of water is an entirely different thing,” says the Sierra Club. Moreover, the activist group has long opposed further exploitation of the very groundwater Pickens wants to use -- the Ogallala Aquifer.
“The source of drinking water and irrigation for Plains residents from Nebraska to Texas, the Ogallala Aquifer is one of the world's largest -- as well as one of the most rapidly dissipating… If current irrigation practices continue, agribusiness will deplete the Ogallala Aquifer in the next century,” says the Sierra Club.
In March 2002, the Sierra Club opposed the construction of a slaughterhouse in Pampa, Texas, because it would require a mere 275 million gallons per year from the Ogallala Aquifer. Yet Pickens wants to sell 65 billion gallons of water per year -- to Dallas alone. In a 2004 lamentation about local government facilitation of Pickens’ plan for the Ogallala, the Sierra Club slammed Pickens as a “junk bond dealer” who wanted to make “Blue Gold” from the Ogallala.
But while the Sierra Club can’t seem to do anything about Pickens’ influence with state legislators, they do have enough influence to make his water politically unpotable. This opposition may soon abate, however, now that Pickens has buddied up with Sierra Club president Carl Pope.
As noted last week, Pope now flies in Pickens’ private jet and publicly lauds him. The two are newly-minted “friends,” since Pope needs the famous Republican oilman to lend propaganda value to the Sierra Club’s anti-oil agenda and Pickens needs Pope to ease up on the Ogallala water opposition.
This alliance isn’t sitting well with everyone on the Left.
A TreeHugger.com writer recently observed, “… I am left asking myself why the green media have neglected [the water] aspect of Pickens’ wind-farm plans? Have we been so distracted by the prospect of Texas’ renewable energy portfolio growing by 4000 megawatts that we are willing to overlook some potentially dodgy aspects to the project?”
It shouldn’t sit well with the rest of us either. Pickens has gamed Texas for his own ends, and now he’s trying to game the rest of us, too. Worse, his gamesmanship includes lending his billionaire resources, prominent stature and feudal powers bestowed upon him by the Texas legislature to help the Greens gain control over the U.S. energy supply.
Pickens Plan Pt 3
Then, I get this article forwarded to me so I went out and found the link for it. Now I’m really ticked off. This is complete corruption of the government from (nearly) the top down. Let me state clearly (and this is for ALL the people that seem to only read what they want to read) that I have no problem with politicians investing in companies. They are human beings and are out to make a buck like everyone else. What I have a problem with are politicians that use their political and public influence to manipulate the economy in such a way as to improve their personal investments at the expense of the public.
I am sick and tired of the press tearing Bush / Cheney apart for having investments in oil or defense companies (hey, *I* have investments in oil and defense companies). There are plenty of republicans, democrats and independents that feel that our government is leading us to even further economic catastrophes under the guise of being green.
The democrats top dawg sits there and accuses people of being greedy and only interested in making a buck without regards to the environment, but let’s follow the money trail for a moment.
Pickens plan continues to unfold…..
Pelosi and the Big Win Boone-doggle
by Michelle Malkin
Creators SyndicateCopyright 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes “hand maidens of the oil companies.” Let’s call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.
Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a “hoax” this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don’t include massive government subsidies for eco-fantastical alternatives that have never panned out.
Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “assets and ‘unearned income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.” Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens– former oilman-turned-wind power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.
Pickens and Pelosi now share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan campaign proposes to completely replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America’s transportation needs.
All well and good in la-la land. But let’s be real about the limitations and costs of wind power. Past and ongoing experience has demonstrated the notorious unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind power facilities here and around the world. Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil fuel plants as back up to be turned on and off to compensate for wind power supply shortfalls– nullifying any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (which are miniscule, according to the National Academy of Sciences).
Not to mention the thousands of sliced-up birds and other wildlife that have become wind power casualties (a problem that scientists say would be solved by “repowering” old turbines at a cost of untold billions).
Fittingly, the environmental mascot of the Democrat National Convention– the showcase of their alternative energy approach — is an eastern Colorado wind turbine propped up with Democrat carbon credit funds that has never produced any energy because of chronic equipment malfunctions.
But I digress.
Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi’s friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upwards of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CEFC and Mesa Power are separate entities. But what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.
Pickens is banking on ‘em. And Pelosi’s banking on him.
As reported on #dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:
“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives. Namely: Natural gas and wind.
Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with the Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multi-billion wind farm investment: “A lot of what he’s trying to do is add value to a stranded asset…he’s obviously got millions of dollars on the line.”
And so, potentially, does the Democrat Speaker of the House windily wagging her finger at the financial motivations of others.
I am sick and tired of the press tearing Bush / Cheney apart for having investments in oil or defense companies (hey, *I* have investments in oil and defense companies). There are plenty of republicans, democrats and independents that feel that our government is leading us to even further economic catastrophes under the guise of being green.
The democrats top dawg sits there and accuses people of being greedy and only interested in making a buck without regards to the environment, but let’s follow the money trail for a moment.
Pickens plan continues to unfold…..
Pelosi and the Big Win Boone-doggle
by Michelle Malkin
Creators SyndicateCopyright 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called congressional Republicans who want up-or-down drilling votes “hand maidens of the oil companies.” Let’s call Pelosi what she is: House girl of the Big Wind boondogglers.
Though she seemingly backtracked on labeling drilling a “hoax” this week, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don’t include massive government subsidies for eco-fantastical alternatives that have never panned out.
Which brings us to Madame Speaker’s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists “assets and ‘unearned income’” of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.” Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens– former oilman-turned-wind power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.
Pickens and Pelosi now share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan campaign proposes to completely replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America’s transportation needs.
All well and good in la-la land. But let’s be real about the limitations and costs of wind power. Past and ongoing experience has demonstrated the notorious unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind power facilities here and around the world. Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil fuel plants as back up to be turned on and off to compensate for wind power supply shortfalls– nullifying any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (which are miniscule, according to the National Academy of Sciences).
Not to mention the thousands of sliced-up birds and other wildlife that have become wind power casualties (a problem that scientists say would be solved by “repowering” old turbines at a cost of untold billions).
Fittingly, the environmental mascot of the Democrat National Convention– the showcase of their alternative energy approach — is an eastern Colorado wind turbine propped up with Democrat carbon credit funds that has never produced any energy because of chronic equipment malfunctions.
But I digress.
Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi’s friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upwards of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CEFC and Mesa Power are separate entities. But what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.
Pickens is banking on ‘em. And Pelosi’s banking on him.
As reported on #dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 of stock in Pickens’ CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:
“She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them becomes less and less attractive.”
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi’s home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives. Namely: Natural gas and wind.
Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with the Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multi-billion wind farm investment: “A lot of what he’s trying to do is add value to a stranded asset…he’s obviously got millions of dollars on the line.”
And so, potentially, does the Democrat Speaker of the House windily wagging her finger at the financial motivations of others.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Kudos to Visa Claims Services
Over a year ago I bought a Denon DVD up converting DVD player. It wasn’t exactly cheap, and it was before Blue Ray and HD DVD started having the serious wars. Just after the standard factory warranty was up the player started having problems.
I had remembered that Visa had a program to extend the factory warranties on products if you had made the purchase on your Visa card, which I had. I called them up and went through a fairly simple process of getting them a repair estimate so they could decide if they wanted to fix the player or replace it. I had a harder time getting the repair estimate than I had dealing with Visa. Visa even extended my deadline because I have been out of town so much.
When the repair estimate came back at just under $200 I was secretly hoping they would tell me to replace the DVD player with the new model, but they said to go ahead and fix it. I got the player back and it works great (btw – it had to have the entire laser transport assembly replaced!). After faxing the full invoice to Visa they had me a replacement check within the week!!
Thanks Visa!
I had remembered that Visa had a program to extend the factory warranties on products if you had made the purchase on your Visa card, which I had. I called them up and went through a fairly simple process of getting them a repair estimate so they could decide if they wanted to fix the player or replace it. I had a harder time getting the repair estimate than I had dealing with Visa. Visa even extended my deadline because I have been out of town so much.
When the repair estimate came back at just under $200 I was secretly hoping they would tell me to replace the DVD player with the new model, but they said to go ahead and fix it. I got the player back and it works great (btw – it had to have the entire laser transport assembly replaced!). After faxing the full invoice to Visa they had me a replacement check within the week!!
Thanks Visa!
Monday, August 25, 2008
Cheap Energy
I was working with some cost and energy use estimates to power a wi-fi shot at a ski resort. For kicks, I looked up what it might cost to install a solar system on my own house.
Using the web site’s calculator at http://www.wholesalesolar.com/ I came up with an average usage of 1245.385 KWH/Month. For me, most of that is in the summer when the AC bills are brutal.
I then estimated that I would like to produce 50% of my home’s energy needs via solar power and that according to the solar map I would receive 5 hours of peak sun per-day (obviously we get more, but this is the peak solar time).
The calculator estimated I needed 4151 Solar Watts to hit my target of 50%. Using the handy-dandy chart I looked up that a “complete” system would run me between $17,500 ~ $25,000!!!! Those costs don’t include freight (and there is a LOT of weight involved), tax (if any), installation, or battery backup. In all fairness there is a $2000 federal tax incentive.
If I keep using their averages I would need 23 175watt solar panels which gives me a size of 3,909 sq. feet (bigger than my house).
Let’s be nice and take into account the tax break, go with a “middle of the road” estimate and assume that I’d be enough of a moron to get up on my own roof and cover the entire thing in solar panels as well as part of my yard all on my own (i.e. no installation costs) which brings me to about $20,000 in costs.
If I saved 50% on my electric bill during maximum usage it would take me 200 months (or 16 years) and that’s a best case scenario. Of course, if we have a hailstorm which is not uncommon here I can expect to spend even more money repairing the panels and I’m not even taking that into consideration.
One added benefit may be that covering the entire house could conceivably keep it cooler as it would no longer get any direct sunlight on the roof.
Somehow I don’t see this as a practical scenario.
In CA they are going cover 12 square miles in solar panels to try to draw enough solar energy to meet the new 20% mandate of renewable energy that CA is forcing electric companies to meet.
Think about it. 12….square….miles of solar panels. You don’t think that impacts the environment?
Too Much Testosterone in One Place
I was out in Dallas today with the girl I am dating. We had to run a few errands and as it turns out one of them took my right past where they were holding a gun show. I needed some bulk ammo for a new gun I had recently purchased and asked her if she minded going inside for a bit (of course I promised not to stay long!).
We go inside and I tell her roughly what I am looking for and we finally find two vendors that happen to have fair prices on bulk .223 ammo. I check each vendor out and finally pick the one that has the best price on the ammo at $175 for 500 rounds. I ask the guy for a box and he whips out a calculator and I think he’s figuring tax. Then I get out my credit card and he punches in some more numbers and tells me that it will be 3% more to use a credit card.
I start to explain to the guy that it’s a violation of the merchant agreement with Visa and that he can’t do that but he won’t even listen to me and says it’s not against the law (actually, in the state of Texas it IS against the law). The price is his cash price. I asked him where the sign was that stated it was a cash price because the only signs I saw were advertised prices.
The guy was a real dickhead and I should have gotten his information, but I ended up going to the other vendor (who was much nicer) and getting the ammo.
The reason I should have gotten the guy’s information was because he was a dick. The top three violations of the cardholders / merchants agreement are:
1 – you cannot impose a minimum purchase price to use a Visa card.
2 – you cannot charge extra for using a credit card. This one is a bit tricky but it works like this. You have an advertised price, let’s say it’s $5.00. You can offer a discount against the advertised price for paying cash. You cannot charge more than the advertised price for using a credit card.
What is the difference? Quite simple. The advertised price is what gets you “into the store.” Not a big deal for me because I only had to walk a few feet in this case, but I’d be really pissed off if I pulled off the highway or drove out of my way for the advertised price only to be told it will be more with a credit card.
3 – you cannot refuse to run a credit card because the person chooses not to show you identification provided that the card is signed on the back.
Merchants violate these all the time, but I don’t think anyone does anything about it. I’m going to try to start reporting them because until someone does they’ll just keep doing it. I wrote Visa to ask what their procedure is when someone files a grievance, but I haven’t heard back. Seems silly to me if all they do is give them a warning. Who cares? That’s not going to stop someone like this dickhead from charging people.
But, as I found out today on the Attorney General’s web site for the state of TX it is in fact illegal to charge extra to use a credit card in the state of TX as it violates the Texas Finance Code. Again they can offer a cash discount, but they cannot charge extra based on the advertised price. There are some minor provisions for things like “convenience fees,” but they don’t apply for face-to-face meetings.
So I screwed up. I should have gotten that guys info and filed with both Visa and the AG. I guess if I was really smart I would have allowed him to charge my card, taken a photo of the advertised price, and then filed with Visa and the AG as well as filed a fraudulent charge for the 3% on the receipt and gotten that back, too.
PS – for those of you that like to write “please see ID” on the back of your card: That’s a violation of your agreement and a merchant may refuse to accept your credit card without penalty. It is part of your agreement to sign the back of the card.
As I am leaving the gun show with my ammo the very last vendor on the way out stops me (as he’s sitting in his chair with his gut hanging over his belt) and says “you didn’t just buy a bunch of re-loads, did you?”
I explained that I did. And he said that it was too bad because he had brand new manufacturer loads at 40-cents a piece. I explained that was more than I paid and he said “whatever…. it’s your gun.” WTF? Is everyone an asshole all of a sudden? First off, professional competition shooters use reloads – there is nothing wrong with them. Secondly, I had ½ a mind to tell this fat bastard that perhaps if he’d spring for a little extra cash he could have a better spot than right by the exit so that he could peddle his wares before people made their purchases.
I’ve never had a bad experience at a gun show and here was two back-to-back before I could get out the door. Actually, I think I’ll blame all this on my date…. She’s a liberal. I bet she was oozing liberalness and they could somehow sense it.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Environmentalist Theory
My father has an opinion that environmentalists are counter-productive for the continuing advancement of civilization. His opinion is that environmentalists are modern day Luddites. That’s a fairly strong opinion and the girl I date was a bit offended by it.
I’ve since been thinking about this quite a bit and have come up with some thoughts, ideas, and theories on the issue. I presented these to the girl I date who is a self-proclaimed tree-hugger and she strongly disagreed with me.
In any case I have been trying to break down what an environmentalist is down to the very core or essence of environmentalism.
Three common dictionary definitions are:
1.
an expert on environmental problems.
2.
any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.
3.
a person who believes that differences between individuals or groups, esp. in moral and intellectual attributes, are predominantly determined by environmental factors, as surroundings, upbringing, or experience (opposed to hereditarian).
Definition #2 is the one I wanted to focus on as this is close enough to what people think of when they hear the word “environmentalism” or “green.” When one thinks of the “protect” you have to then ask what are we protecting the environment from? The definition above indicates pollution or it’s effects. You could break this down even further and go to define pollution. But what causes pollution? It’s mankind.
Essentially my theory works like this: At the very core and extreme edge of environmentalism is a movement to have as little impact on the earth as possible. If we work within the raw context of this the ultimate goal would be to have zero impact on the environment and the only way to do this is if mankind did not exist.
Obviously we (mankind) do exist and so this is not possible but I promise that some nutbag out there is trying to figure out a way to exterminate us to save the planet. The other issue I have with this that mankind is part of the system and the environment we are not separate from it, and within this we must find some balance.
I think that the Eskimos, native Indians, etc. are probably the closest form of true and reasonable environmentalists. Within the confines of extreme environmentalism they had learned to coexist with the planet and very little impact to the environment. They took very little from the land or animals and when they migrated within their territories the land and environment were essential no worse for wear.
My theory continues by advocating that if you wanted to be a true environmentalist you would have some land. You would farm the land without raping it because you would not be producing commercially available crops. You would grow trees and utilize them to build your house. You would have no electricity, no running water, and no goods available in a grocery store because any of the three would require some form of modern day environmental impact (steel, copper, metal, gas to farm and deliver groceries, etc.) That’s extreme environmentalism. You can see we are getting back to the native Indians prior to the invasion of the white man.
But again, this is not realistic and if you think of what my father says then we are on the same page because any modern day advancement has an impact on the environment. So what we really get down to is a compromise. What is an acceptable impact to the environment? I used an example of riding a bicycle. Modern day environmentalist ride a bicycle so that they don’t have to burn gas or support the manufacturing of automobiles. But there is a fallacy in this way of thinking. The bicycle itself impacts the environment via production. There is plant where the bicycle is made. People have to get to the plant. Raw materials are utilized and how do you think they appear? Certainly not by magic. And once the bicycle is manufactured it is shipped to a retail outlet where you purchase the bike. Again, all of this has an impact on the environment. The counter-argument? That the bicycle as used by the individual has less impact on the environment than an automobile and I completely agree with this.
That same person may ride their bike home to where they have modern day conveniences like electricity, a television, and running water. Again, they are getting away from their core values but I can guarantee they have found some form of acceptability because it fits within confines of their values and compromises. I, too, fall into this category because while I love my house, toys, etc., I don’t want to harm the environment any more than I have to in order to live my life the way I want to.
But this is part of the problem. Even the environmentalist can’t agree on what is right and what is wrong with trying to save the environment. Some environmentalists care more about the animals. Some care more about the water or the land. Some care more about fellow man and it goes on and on and on. Ultimately, we get back to the root of environmentalism and someone, somewhere, is going to be unhappy at whatever impact modern day progress is making. Don’t burn fossil fuels they pollute the air and cause global warming (SIC). Don’t put up windmills because they kill birds. Don’t put up solar panels because they impact terra firma. Don’t use wave and tidal technology because they impact the sea. Don’t do this, don’t do that, etc.
And ultimately what is the answer? There isn’t one. We have to find some semblance of balance between environmentalism and progress. In theory our system of democracy should achieve this, but it may take a long time. If you really want to reduce the impact on the environment stop breeding. Stop making babies and stop increasing the earth’s population every year. Balance it out. We have finite resources yet we treat the planet as if we can just keep on taking more and more from it without impacting something else. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I believe it was George Carlin that said it best, though. He was doing a stand-up skit and said environmentalists were full of shit. Why? If you had a nuclear holocaust and wiped out mankind and burned the earth before throwing it into a post-nuclear winter the earth would survive. It might take a billion years but it would come back long after mankind had ceased to roam the planet. The point? We aren’t saving the planet for the planet’s sake, we are saving it for mankind’s sake.
Hey, I didn’t say it. And now I have to go get ready for another trip on an airplane.
I’ve since been thinking about this quite a bit and have come up with some thoughts, ideas, and theories on the issue. I presented these to the girl I date who is a self-proclaimed tree-hugger and she strongly disagreed with me.
In any case I have been trying to break down what an environmentalist is down to the very core or essence of environmentalism.
Three common dictionary definitions are:
1.
an expert on environmental problems.
2.
any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.
3.
a person who believes that differences between individuals or groups, esp. in moral and intellectual attributes, are predominantly determined by environmental factors, as surroundings, upbringing, or experience (opposed to hereditarian).
Definition #2 is the one I wanted to focus on as this is close enough to what people think of when they hear the word “environmentalism” or “green.” When one thinks of the “protect” you have to then ask what are we protecting the environment from? The definition above indicates pollution or it’s effects. You could break this down even further and go to define pollution. But what causes pollution? It’s mankind.
Essentially my theory works like this: At the very core and extreme edge of environmentalism is a movement to have as little impact on the earth as possible. If we work within the raw context of this the ultimate goal would be to have zero impact on the environment and the only way to do this is if mankind did not exist.
Obviously we (mankind) do exist and so this is not possible but I promise that some nutbag out there is trying to figure out a way to exterminate us to save the planet. The other issue I have with this that mankind is part of the system and the environment we are not separate from it, and within this we must find some balance.
I think that the Eskimos, native Indians, etc. are probably the closest form of true and reasonable environmentalists. Within the confines of extreme environmentalism they had learned to coexist with the planet and very little impact to the environment. They took very little from the land or animals and when they migrated within their territories the land and environment were essential no worse for wear.
My theory continues by advocating that if you wanted to be a true environmentalist you would have some land. You would farm the land without raping it because you would not be producing commercially available crops. You would grow trees and utilize them to build your house. You would have no electricity, no running water, and no goods available in a grocery store because any of the three would require some form of modern day environmental impact (steel, copper, metal, gas to farm and deliver groceries, etc.) That’s extreme environmentalism. You can see we are getting back to the native Indians prior to the invasion of the white man.
But again, this is not realistic and if you think of what my father says then we are on the same page because any modern day advancement has an impact on the environment. So what we really get down to is a compromise. What is an acceptable impact to the environment? I used an example of riding a bicycle. Modern day environmentalist ride a bicycle so that they don’t have to burn gas or support the manufacturing of automobiles. But there is a fallacy in this way of thinking. The bicycle itself impacts the environment via production. There is plant where the bicycle is made. People have to get to the plant. Raw materials are utilized and how do you think they appear? Certainly not by magic. And once the bicycle is manufactured it is shipped to a retail outlet where you purchase the bike. Again, all of this has an impact on the environment. The counter-argument? That the bicycle as used by the individual has less impact on the environment than an automobile and I completely agree with this.
That same person may ride their bike home to where they have modern day conveniences like electricity, a television, and running water. Again, they are getting away from their core values but I can guarantee they have found some form of acceptability because it fits within confines of their values and compromises. I, too, fall into this category because while I love my house, toys, etc., I don’t want to harm the environment any more than I have to in order to live my life the way I want to.
But this is part of the problem. Even the environmentalist can’t agree on what is right and what is wrong with trying to save the environment. Some environmentalists care more about the animals. Some care more about the water or the land. Some care more about fellow man and it goes on and on and on. Ultimately, we get back to the root of environmentalism and someone, somewhere, is going to be unhappy at whatever impact modern day progress is making. Don’t burn fossil fuels they pollute the air and cause global warming (SIC). Don’t put up windmills because they kill birds. Don’t put up solar panels because they impact terra firma. Don’t use wave and tidal technology because they impact the sea. Don’t do this, don’t do that, etc.
And ultimately what is the answer? There isn’t one. We have to find some semblance of balance between environmentalism and progress. In theory our system of democracy should achieve this, but it may take a long time. If you really want to reduce the impact on the environment stop breeding. Stop making babies and stop increasing the earth’s population every year. Balance it out. We have finite resources yet we treat the planet as if we can just keep on taking more and more from it without impacting something else. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I believe it was George Carlin that said it best, though. He was doing a stand-up skit and said environmentalists were full of shit. Why? If you had a nuclear holocaust and wiped out mankind and burned the earth before throwing it into a post-nuclear winter the earth would survive. It might take a billion years but it would come back long after mankind had ceased to roam the planet. The point? We aren’t saving the planet for the planet’s sake, we are saving it for mankind’s sake.
Hey, I didn’t say it. And now I have to go get ready for another trip on an airplane.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Travel Gods Still Pissed Off
When we left out of Bozeman headed for Atlanta the weather report was moderate winds and party cloudy skies in ATL. Those turned into gale force winds, and huge-ass thunderheads. I think one of them actually looked like my third grade teacher....
Anyway, I was thinking "so much for partly cloudy" as I was cinching my seat belt tighter when the captain came on the p.a., said it was going to be rough and for the flight attends to sit the fuck down!
We flew through a thunder cell. This was not fun. It wasn't as bad as the Ireland fiasco, but it wasn't far from it. People were white-knuckling whatever they could get their hands on and literally screaming in terror as the plane would drop or be violently thrown side to side. I guess some people pay for this type of thing at amusement parks, but I'm not particularly sadistic in this regard and didn't enjoy it much. At least nobody was puking.
This was on a 757 and so I'm thinking the whole time - now what did Mrs. Bling! and Bling! me about tolerances? What about those rivets and stress fractures, etc. etc. as the wing is "cycling." That's a nice way of saying that it reminded me of a diving board after a fat bastard just went off into the deep end. And nobody says much when your iPod is floating off your lap.
But, yes....we made it....to another airport. Mainly because after flying through the cell it was decided that it was too dangerous to land. We made it to a regional airport and waited to get re-fueled (Bling! does this sound familiar?). They wouldn't let us off the plane so I was walking around and started talking to the captain. He was pulling up the weather radar on his do-hickey and was showing me the huge-ass red cell that we just flew through. I couldn't tell, but I think he was actually bragging a little bit. I wanted to wring his neck.
Anyway, I just wanted to say a quick thank you to Bling! and Mrs. Bling! for all the tin files and things they have told me over the years. I put it to good use up there.
But it wasn’t over, yet….because we flew back to ATL and of course all the connecting flights were either gone or cancelled. So there was about…oh…the entire population of Georgia at the airport trying to get their bags, a hotel, a car, something to eat, you name it.
Delta already had me re-booked on the first flight out and a voucher for a discount at a hotel. So I called the hotel and they wouldn’t answer the phone….at all…..ever… so I gave up and scrambled for the “courtesy” phone wall and began calling all the hotels in the area. I lucked out (?) and got a roach-infested flea-bag hotel for $100.00. Now all I had to do was grab a shuttle.
Let me tell you that ATL has got the most fucked up, ass-backwards, inefficient shuttle and bus system I have ever seen at an airport. It was a disaster. It was crowded to the point of not being able to move, everybody was pissed off, and nobody could get to their shuttles because nobody knew where they would park, there were no lines, it was complete chaos, and it was hot. Isn’t that a great combo??
After being pissed off for another hour or so I finally gave up and grabbed a taxi. I got to the roach motel about 1:00am and then was able to get a pizza delivered (I hadn’t eaten in about 12 hours at this point) and crashed about 2:00am. BTW, did I mention that the floor at the hotel was slimy? It was rather disgusting and of course my luggage was “in transit” and I had no fresh clothes after sweating my balls off at the shuttle service.
You might recall I said I had the first flight out and I finally got crashed about 2:00am. So after four hours of broken sleep I made it to the airport to grab the flight. I obviously still haven’t appeased the travel gods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)