Of course he's doing this for profit. He's not a polititian - he's a businessman. But - at least it's for alternative energy rather than for big oil. THAT I support - even if it makes him rich.
The point is that, while the climate has fluxuated quite a bit throughout natural history, we've become dependant on the current climate to sustain a huge number of people and that that climate forms the foundations of our economy. Nuclear power has very long lead-in times because the environmental stakes are so high. Offshore (and to a lesser extent onshore) wind has encountered some NIMBYism but c'mon, nuclear has got that in spades. When wind can be developed in tied into existing transmission infrastructures it's one of the fastest turn around because of the distributed nature of it. South Dakota is apparently tackling the transmission infrastructure issue. Colorado is doing the same. Under-inflated tyres reduce fuel efficiency by 3% or there abouts. For more, see here. I've noticed everytime my tyre pressures been abnormally low by observing that my car's fuel efficiency is lower than normal. A quick inspection of the tyres has revealed the problem. If you read the fuel economy forums here on PC that's the most common question that people ask when someone posts a "my car's using too much petrol" thread. Again, see the above link. Things like O2 sensors malfunction. The point is that there are things that we can do now that will have the same effect as drilling for oil. They will also have a much more immediate impact. The point too, is that the increased production of oil won't really improve our lot. Why not push for a more sustainable solution instead of taking the short term, easy answer? We're going to be right back where we started sooner than you think. That's true, and I didn't say that I was opposed to offshore drilling per se. However, I am opposed to it if we don't do something to solve our mid/long term energy problems. Offshore drilling is not a solution to anything. It's treading water at best. While it might mitigate foreign oil imports, it won't put much of a dent in them. By the time that oils on line and flowing our other domestic production will have tappered off that much more. Treading water. Last time I checked there were many, many efficient vehicles on the market at very reasonable prices. None of them weigh 6000 pounds, however. The cars might have a higher upfront cost, but a lower operating cost. The markets already showing that people understand that. Just look at the ridiculous incentives that dealerships are offering on trucks and SUVs. There aren't many takers. Meanwhile, Hondas are flying off the lot. Market forces are also reactionary. We need to be proactive. The market is incapable of identifing a problem that is 5 years out (or more). That takes policy. The market is already fixing, albeit painfully, this problem. People are suddenly realizing that they don't need Toyota Tundra to commute to their desk job. They don't need an F-150 because they might need to tow something at some time in the distant future. It takes political will to get things done. That was my point. The private sector is limited by the fact that it's a slave to the market. As I pointed out before, the market is a reactionary creature. Energy policy needs to be developed outside of the day to day pressures of a very short sighted apparatus. The reason what we're in the cosh now is that we've been putting off decisions until later and letting the market be our policy. No, what you do is innovate a new, more intelligent infrastructure. Asian telecommunications infrastructure is a good example of this. They aren't installing all of the crap we have left over from the 1970's because better stuff is available. They'll simply leapfrog us in that respect. We're tied to 19th and 20th century infrastructure. That doesn't mean everyone has to be. You may need to check again before you assume where I stand on treaties and international protocols before you attempt to discuss the issues at hand. When did I say anything about that? Are you talking about Kyoto? It sounds like you are. I'm opposed to it. It won't work. It creates a bit of a game theory dilemma for countries. Canada has shown what a farce it is. Their oil sands operations have proved too tempting a fruit and they've blown out their CO2 emissions as a result.
I am Only Glad Someone Has A Plan! The Dems not The GOP Do Not! Sure the plan needs more study, BUT IT"S A PLAN!!
The EV refueling station is called an electrical outlet. The issue with driving the present day EV's accross the country is not lack of electrical outlets, it's that few are willing to wait the hours needed. You know this inside and out, so I'm a little surprised you wanted to take a fun remark and make it unfun.
Excellent link. It really drives home the point that a lot of NG and oil can only be extracted if we use more energy than we get out. Makes it rather clear that the Picken's plan is doomed to fail.
You mean a gas station will just let me plug my EV in for free to recharge? A restaurant will let me plug in for free while I eat? The motel might not catch me running my extention cord out to my car from the room. No. We don't have a proper infrastructure for recharging EVs across the country yet. We have a make-shift, borrowed from another purpose, make do structure.
No, they will not let you plug in for free, but all it takes is a wattmeter plugged in line and "ta-da", you have your electric refilling station. We both know the limitation is getting the EV, not the electricity. Remember the original point was having the infrastructure in place, and that is ready and able.
But one of the arguments against the EV has been no infrastructure. So they'll have to do a much better job of selling "ready now".
Hi Trip, And Pickens wants to run cars on NG ? NG (not good!). That report says we are 10 years away from our household methane being a manufactured rather than a mined product here in the US! And we all know that is going to be expensive.
In ten years we should be capturing methane from landfills and animal excrement from large scale farms. We should be doing it now.
Cheers, mate. Yeah it doesn't look good. I'd be curious to see a rebuttal. I don't know how definitive it really is, but it really does beg the question, "is this really a good idea?" EROI is everything, but a lot of folks aren't really aware of it. Salivating of the Colorado oil shale is a good example of that lack of awareness.
Really? I had heard that a lot of the meat farms for beef and pork just wash the animal waste off instead of containing it and using it for methane production. I agree that wastewater treatment should not only be recovering clean water but also producing methane and fertilizer. What else can be recovered for reuse? Nothing like eliminating multiple fowl with one projectile.
Having lived in West Texas, I think the only real issue is the infrastructure to connect the grid. The wind may slow down but it never really dies. The average windspeed is around 16 mph year round. And scenery isn't too much of an issue. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but wind turbines aren't all that ugly anyway.
As soon as someone figures out that they can make money providing the infrastucture, then bang, problem solved. That's why pipeline operators exist. Unfortunately, that is how Enron started out, so the electric infrastructure builders may not be angels by the time the infrastructure is finished and in use.
Oh there are tonnes who don't but a growing number who do. Breweries are also greening up. New Belguim brewery in Fort Collins, CO has set a very high standard that a certain Anheisur Busch (who also have a brewery in Ft. Collins) as taken note of. Sierra Nevada brewery out in your state is doing a good job of turning waste into energy. They are using Solid Oxide Fuel Cells there in CA. There's a long way to go, however.
