Peak oil and political indifference

Pretty damn telling, don't you think?

Only in the most trivial way. Democracies work like this. Hell, Washington knew about this. As he put (in so many words), it's not good enough for a republic to see a problem; It has to feel it. We're feeling it now.

If Pickens really wants to do something about energy dependence, then he can stop all the ballyhooing and do something. I mean, what was stopping him in 1996?

Off topic, but I just found an interview with Obama from 1995 on Youtube. Do a search for "Host Connie Martinson interviews Barack Obama". I haven't even finished watching the whole thing, but I figured people would be interested in checking it out.

The only reason why TBP is in the wind energy business is because of the tax deductions. If not for the deductions wind power is not a viable alternative.

From Fast Magazine
What happens if Congress doesn't extend the $20-per-megawatt-hour Production Tax Credit for wind -- set to expire December 31? On a project this size, that's an $80,000 deduction every hour at full capacity.
Then you've got a dead duck. It would be hard to go without a subsidy. But they'll probably pass it.
http://www.fastcompany.com/node/849689/print

here are more reasons why he is so hot for wind
When it comes to investment risk, argues Schleede, Pickens has a five-card poker hand that can’t be topped.

* The federal production tax credit, which will reduce the tax liability of the Pickens wind farm by $2.45 billion over 10 years.

* Accelerated depreciation, a “generous 5-year, double declining balance accelerated derepciation” for federal tax purposes, worth as much as another $3.5 billion in six years. If the project is 50% debt financed, says Schleede, Pickens would “recover thru depreciation all of his equity investment in less than two years and in just over one year if the project begins operation late in the first tax year.”

* Texas tax franchise breaks. Texas law allows a deduction from state tax laws in two ways, says Schleede. First, the total cost of the system can get reduced from the company’s total taxable capital. Alternatively, he notes, 10% of the cost of the wind system can be deducted from the company’s income.

* The Texas renewable portfolio standard and renewable energy credits flow to the bottom line of wind projects in the Lone Star State. “The higher costs forced on electric distribution companies,” says Schleede, “are passed on to electric customers in their monthly bills – apparently with the blessing of the state’s political leaders and regulators.”

* Pass-through of transmission costs. The cost of moving wind long distances from where it is generated to where consumers can use it, he notes, will be “borne by electric customers in their monthly bills, not by the ‘wind farm’ owners.” In addition to the capital costs of transmission, Schleede notes, customers will pay for the line losses of wind as it moves from the point of generation to the customers. Also, he argues that “wind farms use transmission capacity inefficiently, resulting in high unit cost for the electricity that is eventually received.”
http://www.powermag.com/ExportedSite/BlogArticles/111.htm

Swear to God, and you all are witnesses, this November I am writing in the only political figure who got it early. Putin.

How are our idiots to learn if we don't show them a role model?

oshkosh wrote:

"Keep in mind this is the guy who financed the Swiftboaters in 2004, agreed to pay $10million to the people who debunked the book, and has now welshed on the agreement.
If he is pushing this, it is NOT out of altruism or patriotism."
-------------------------------------------------

Yes, according to a recent CBS interview Pickens has acknowledged spending upwards of $6 million on 9 different ads concerning statements from the "Swiftboaters" regarding John Kerry and his service during Vietnam.

Pickens' challenge was for anyone to disprove factual statements only in those ads which he had financed. It had nothing to do with the book. And the sum in question was $1 million, not $10 million. So as far as I can see, he didn't welsh on his proposal.

I don't know much about the guy but I wouldn't doubt his patriotism. I also don't think he's introduced the plan for purely altruistic reasons either. The guy isn't a saint, he's a business tycoon who is using his talents for a noble effort as far as I can see. And if he can prove to others that money can be made by producing cleaner alternative energy sources while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, how would that be a bad thing?

Don't know much about Pickens, but I think there are HUGE FORTUNES to be made in alternative energy sources and as an entrepreneur he is at least thinking ahead about making more money. If his ideas are practical (which at first glance they seem to be) then US policymakers and Jane and John Q Citizen should demand that they be explored. I live two miles from Lake Michigan and we get lots of wind here and I would like to see wind power utilized. I hear people complain about the noise that those windmills make, but I think I could get used to it like I did the train that ran not too far from the house I grew up in. His timeline of 20-30 years to make an adjustment seems realistic as well. We are not going to solve this problem in one or two election cycles. A long range plan needs to be developed.

If Pickens really wants to do something about energy dependence, then he can stop all the ballyhooing and do something.

I don't know much about the guy but I wouldn't doubt his patriotism.

1) I think he is starting to an attempt to do something about energy. Let's give him some time to rollout the plan (though I mostly know what it is).

2) Why should we care about his patriotism? Is he primarily self-interested in this deal? Of course he is. Why is this a BAD thing? I for one want people who are completely invested in making as much money for themselves, their companies, and their shareholders leading the energy revolution. I do not want the government leading it.

I commend for at least putting his name and his money out there with a coherent plan. It might not be the best one; indeed, it might not even be plausible. It's a start, though. If at the very least he builds a swath of turbines in North Texas and fuels a couple power plants with them, he is doing his part. Maybe some other wealthy individuals will follow.

No doubt oilmen are seeing the end of their days in the future. I applaud those men that stand up and offer solutions instead of fighting against the inevitable.

The most optimistic estimate I have seen for ANWR and offshore drilling combined is 2 million barrels a day, with most estimates claiming one to one and a half million (if anyone knows better numbers speak up). Given that we currently use 21 million a day and that we are talking many years before said oil would actually arrive, I do not see those sources affecting our oil prices.

1. Energy prices are being driven up in part because of market expectations of future scarcity rather than just current supply and demand. Drilling in ANWR and elsewhere reduces that scarcity and thus mitigates the price problem.

2. ANWR production obviously wouldn't solve the entire energy price problem -- but how is that an argument against it? Hybrid vehicles have far less positive impact on our environment than ANWR would on energy prices; should hybrid production cease? It is one piece of a large puzzle.

3. ANWR is a political football only because the environmental movement has made a fetish out of it, as if limited drilling there would turn some pristine arctic treasure into a vast toxic wasteland.

I specifically said that we should eventually drill in those currently restricted areas as it will mean we send less money overseas. The problem I see with drilling is that Republicans offer it as the only solution. Democrats fail to acknowledge that ti will help us send less money overseas.

I apologize for misreading you, Steve, and I completely agree with this. ANWR drilling is like a lot of political hot potatoes -- interest groups on both sides have made it a much bigger deal than it ought to be.

We need more petroleum production, including ANWR. No environmental catastrophe will result, despite the talking points from urban, northeastern Democrats. That said, more domestic drilling is only a small part of the solution to the overall energy problem. It isn't the silver bullet that Sean Hannity-ite Republicans pretend it is.

Keep it in the ground for now. The longer it stays there, the more valuable it becomes.