What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
149 Comments
- iwillforgetthis, on 07/20/2008, -0/+391) Pickens subscribes to the Peak Oil theory and has for many years. So he believes we need to get off oil and natural gas as a country as soon as possible.
2) He'll make a poop load of money off this. - seks03, on 07/19/2008, -8/+46his plans sounds really good but I just have this bad feeling there's something under handed going on.... I know he owns the biggest Natural gas company but making profit is not a problem... I don't know, Something just doesn't feel right about this.
- oboy, on 07/20/2008, -2/+32Let's face it, the guy's an oilman. He can make money in way he wants. This plan wouldn't seem so bad coming from Bill Gates or another wealthy person outside of the field, but this feels like a tobacco company backing a plan to make people quit smoking. It seems like something is fishy until you realize they own a ton of stocks in "The Patch" or something else.
Pickens has made his money. He is known for eccentric spending, including donating over $100 million to his alma mater to help them put in better sports facilities. Any other oilman and I would question it. Pickens - he means what he says and he says what he means. - oboy, on 07/20/2008, -1/+23This is a guy who donated $165 million to Oklahoma State University, mostly for their sports. He's not shy about his money.
Those who are skeptical about his intentions, keep in mind. HE'S IN THE OIL BUSINESS. If he wanted to just make more money, he is definitely in a position to do so. This is a risk that will most likely make him money, but if you watch his video, the guy is about as simple and genuine as they come. He's a transparent guy who sees an opportunity that will help America, help his local area (Texas and Oklahoma) and help himself. - bossm4n, on 07/20/2008, -1/+20This should not be a left vs. right issue. Getting off our addiction to foreign oil should be the goal of every American. And let's keep adding solar, nuclear and a few other alternatives to the mix while we're at it.
- MarkLaymon, on 07/19/2008, -1/+19I have been following many of the wind power companies for a while now. The only thing I can see going on with them is the fact that they know they can make a pile of money if they get in now before the land rush has become full swing
- migshark, on 07/20/2008, -1/+19It's hard to argue with such a plan. I concede there are many fishy points for sure, but keep in mind the alternatives. This is the positive flipside, so don't be choosy beggars. Having said that, I'd like to remind people that In Obama's Blueprint for Change he states that he'll invest $150b over ten years for clean energy. By rounding up publicity and democratic support for himself, who do you think will be one of the first people offered a juicy slice of that $150b pie?
- codyman, on 07/20/2008, -4/+22See, if congress allotted 300 million in taxpayer money to something like this.... probably about 275 million of that would end up going towards gold toilet seats and congressional vacations
- shitforbrains, on 07/20/2008, -0/+16"He has the ONE thing the democrats love, MONEY!"
Replace "democrats" with "every politician and person in power since the beginning of time"
I like the plan, at least it's a plan. Up until now we have had no plan. All we have is the hope that somebody somewhere will finally invent a Mr. Fusion that you can put on the back of your car and he'll be able to market it before the petroleum companies kill him. - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -35/+48"Now, the man who worked against Al Gore and challenged John Kerry is now promoting something that is traditionally unconservative."
What's "unconservative" about it? The man is out to make money. He isn't a dolt. He is a smart business man. And conservatives want to get off the foreign oil as much as the left. It just that the left expects us to give up some of our conveniences and lower our lifestyles to accommodate their plans. The left would just as soon have us living in mud huts as the "new World order" bunch would. - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -2/+14Honestly, the fact that he's a Texas oil man actually reassures me. The fact is, he is in it strictly for the money. One might argue that he's just trying to play off of global warming hype or whatever, but let's face it - no one's giving up their oil dependency over global warming fears. Being an oil man, he understands that better than anyone, and yet despite that, he sees the need to diversify and invest in alternative energy. If anything, it suggests to me that we're perhaps over-confident in our oil dependency. Nothing in the world is as reliable as human greed, and if greed points us in the direction of alternative energy, I think it's something we should really pay attention to.
- bowe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+12He is being underhanded. There's a couple of reasons why he is doing this other than wind power. If you read up on him, he has purchased a ton of water rights in Canada. (as well as rights to tar sands, which the corridor leads directly to). Not only does he believe in peak-oil, he also believes in peak-water. With a wind-mill corridor he can build a pipeline to bring fresh water southward and into the United States, to sell at a premium. He's already done a similar thing in Texas pairing wind with water. I think he's using the wind power more as a gimmick to get the water pipelines that he needs.
Pickens has a quote, "Water is the new oil."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_25 ... - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -14/+24Sorry, I'm about as far let as somebody can get, and I love my modern conveniences. I want to help bring the people living in mud huts out of that into nice, safe, clean housing. Way to make a terrible generalization about a group of people you know absolutely nothing about.
- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+11He's in a position to realize the best of all worlds - helping to make the world (including his local areas) a better place, and making a boatload of cash doing it.
- BradMajors, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9Pickens is promoting this plan because he wants taxpayers to pay for building transmission lines to his wind farms. His wind farm would not be economical if he had to build his own transmission lines. His plan has been a success. The Texas PUC has agreed to build the transmission lines on a 2 to 1 vote. The one negative vote was from a commissioner who thought the wind farms should have paid for some of the cost.
- pjr12345, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9If Pickens wishes to bet his fortune on his plan, I say, "HAVE AT IT!" As soon as he makes a play for your and my money (aka tax dollars), then he has crossed the line. Any plan that begs for public funding is a boondoggle.
- doom777, on 07/20/2008, -3/+12"It is an alternative to the drill and burn proposals that the Republicans are backing that, in theory, should yield the same if not better results from an economy perspective. "
Why can't they use both plans? Redirect electricity production to wind, use the freed gas for new gas cars, and drill oil to supplement the remaining oil cars. We are not going to get off all foreign oil, but we'll import a lot less than either one of these plans alone provides for. - mclaughlind, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8He isn't talking about one or two wind turbines; he's talking about wind farms stretching for miles on end, all linked together. While the chances of the entire MidWestern Corridor not having wind are not impossible, I would conclude that it is highly improbable seeing as how the border to border distance is roughly 1100 miles.
Undoubtedly with the United States, Canada and Mexico growing closer together because of NAFTA as well as several other pending trade agreements, our northern and southern neighbors will want to join in allowing the US to expand these wind farms onto greater areas of land further decreasing the chances of a wind shortage.
The variability of the plan is much less than you make out. Especially if there are multiple fall backs or reserves of say crude oil -- already in existence) in the event that wind stops blowing across the entire mid-continental United States for a long period of time.
More valid arguments against it would be "What sort of harm will this cause to the environment?" or "Will the American West experience a similar backlash and rising food prices on the global commodities market as it did when large corporations designated huge areas of their crops for Ethanol?" - tajitj, on 07/20/2008, -7/+15He does want to mandate the wind. I like a plan laid out by someone who has money and not a politician who just steals mine.
I want to know what Bob Barr thinks about it. Obama and McCain will not touch this. - Brad324, on 07/20/2008, -2/+10oh I see. Shut everything down then, Kirly has done the math.
- algaeturd, on 07/20/2008, -4/+12I'm starting to get really discouraged by the amount of people with dumb comments who are flying an American flag avatar.
- dagamer34, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8Greed can still be good for him, bad for us. Don't think of this as simple as being a win/win for everyone.
- cheesehound, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8The thing that creeps me out here is that he proposes using natural gas to fuel cars rather than to just keep using it for electrical power creation and powering electric cars. Maybe he's just working from his own knowledge on fuel distribution,etc., but to me it seems that moving natural gas power from plants to cars is just lowering the efficiency of the operation while shifting our dependencies to another liquid fuel that is far less transferable and abundant than electricity.
Battery technology is by no means perfect and clean, but it definitely is making promising changes, and other electricity-storage techniques ranging from supercapacitors to air pressure make me wary of any plan that would want to use a more limiting power source. - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -5/+13@stagmire
Wow, that's the douchiest thing I've heard all week. - RobotBuddha, on 07/20/2008, -3/+11I hate when people use the word conservative when what they mean is 'republican'. Same with using the word liberal when they mean democrat.
- philipl411, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7I agree. but Texas is already starting to fund his plan. They are going to spend 4.6 billion dollar to build transmission lines to these windmills. If its such a great ideal, why does he need public funding?
- Thinbev, on 07/20/2008, -3/+10I love it! Another great example of how the private sector works better than politicians and their government agencies.
Politicians want to tax us and then redistribute our hard earned money to their "green" business buddies. Obama, wants to invest 150 Billion of OUR money? This is crazy!!!!! What gives him the right to do that? Why would we let him do that?
Politicians suck at everything they do. When a government agency screws up, nothing happens to that agency. When a private company screws up, they go out of business... Which is why private companies do a better job than the Fed. Private companies have more to lose... The government always stays in business, even if they suck at what they're doing...
If you agree with what I just wrote I suggest you visit www.CampaignForLiberty.com. - paradexes, on 07/20/2008, -1/+8Honestly nothing wrong with making money if it is helping everyone else at the same time. Its when you are doing things to gouge people that its a problem.
- TheNeptune, on 07/20/2008, -1/+8He's actually given around $300 million to his alma mater for sports and around $150 million for academics.
- roamzero, on 07/20/2008, -2/+8First the tech bubble, then the housing bubble. Next? The green bubble.
- ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6He's not just eccentric, throwing away this money. If he can get buy-in, he'll make a whole nothing ***** of cash. He's getting in on the ground floor.
- Brassbud, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Or, instead of destroying the Great Plains with wind turbines and the huge, inefficient infrastructure to support them, we could just build a couple more nuke plants per state and be done with it.
- gradient01, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Yes, because he isn't going to make money off the other (non-wind) renewable power sources. His advertising campaign is an investment not a public service...
- bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -4/+10@lajaw
EVERYONE should help pay for it, because it will help EVERYONE. The cost of your food and all shipped goods will go down, or at least not climb as much. That benefits YOU too! Better cars? Better tech? That benefits YOU TOO! Just because you don't want to use it RIGHT HERE, and RIGHT NOW doesn't mean you won't benefit from it.
Can't you think outside your 4 walls and 4 week time frame? - iwillforgetthis, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Type Pickens and Peak Oil into Google. He has ascribed to Peak Oil for years.
My comment is not "Baloney!".
And I did say he was in this for the money. - TVarmy, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Hydrogen's biggest problem seems to be the laws of physics. Lithium ion batteries are already better at storing energy than electrolyzing hydrogen is at its theoretical max (75% vs 45%).
I didn't like the plan at first, because natural gas is kinda bait and switch in my mind as it is still a fossil fuel. However, it does burn cleaner, and we have plenty of it. It would also discourage the practice of "gas flaring," as using natural gas for transportation would drive up the price, making it more important for those who run oil wells to capture and ship it. Look up gas flares online; they burn about a third as much gas as America burns in a year. What is really good is that it would pay off quickly as opposed to drilling ANWR, and I think it would definitely help to improve plugin hybrid vehicles, which would ease the transition to all electric cars. Refueling at home would be nice, and we'd not have as much inertia from the oil companies, as we are using one of their products.
Batteries are the future, but they are developing too slowly in terms of price and energy density. CNG seems like a great band-aid until the tech is developed. - zooplibob, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Can you explain whats wrong with enacting this plan AND opening up drilling? They arent mutually exclusive. In fact, opening up the US for more oil drill will PAY for this plan and then some, because of the increased drilling royalties the government will get.
I think any rational thinker will agree that we do everything possible to increase our energy supply. That means drilling now, and investing in alternatives for the future. - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -4/+10I kinda like this dude. Now, if he'll front me a few bucks...
- drachemorder, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5"Why can't they use both plans?"
Because that would just make way too much sense. - positron, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5He's a businessman who sees that the writing is on the wall for the oil industry. He's gonna make a mint by pushing for alternative energy policies which favors his own business model and investment plans at the expense of his competitors'... whats not to understand about that?
/fixed - Thinbev, on 07/20/2008, -1/+6So true. Politicians suck at everything they do.
Our government should get out of the way, stop regulating the market place, dramatically lower taxes, and let the smart people take care of it.
The current Republican and Democrat politicians aren't smart. They're lazy, greedy, and harmful to our economy and our personal freedoms. We need to start electing small government, pro-Constitution people to all positions of government ASAP!!
Once we get that, we'll have a prosperous and peaceful America.
If you agree with what I just typed, visit www.CampaignForLiberty.com - smoothmedia, on 07/20/2008, -2/+7Last time I checked, there's nothing wrong about making money in America. If Pickens plan somehow makes him even more rich, but helps the environment and makes the US more energy independent...more power to him!
It takes guys like this with "enlightened self interest" to realize that the best business practices in the long run are sustainable environmentally. - jer2eydevil88, on 07/20/2008, -2/+6doom you sir are an idiot.
The problem with building Nuclear plants is that they take a very long time to build and not many people would want to live near them. My grandfather was a nuclear engineer and he once explained the USA nuclear plant construction and disaster avoidance process to me. "We build a plant over seven years and we take careful steps to insure its built to withstand anything from a bomb to a 747 crashing into it. The Russians build a plant over the course of a year and scrap as much building material as they possibly can without frying themselves." I'm not saying he was 100% right because we did have 3 mile isle but if you read up on these disasters all plants have since removed the ability for control rods to be completely removed and sensors are much more commonplace. - breezytrees, on 07/20/2008, -4/+8Pickens likes the plan because his company is building the wind farms. Conflict of interest much?
Wind energy sucks though. It takes forever to break-even because of the energy costs to produce the giant aluminum towers. Then they break and resulting in high maintenance costs.... ..like they've been doing over the past 30 years.
Solar/nuclear energy is the way to go. Cheap, clean, easy. Europe is kicking ass with that combo atm.
/just my opinion - ffelix, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7Why are conservatives like this guy such cowards? Show me the evidence that Dems & liberals expect you to give up your MTV or whatever the f--k it is you're so scared about losing. We actually live pretty well under Dems in recent history. It wasn't Dems who just magically transformed the biggest surplus in history into the biggest debt in history without even making life better for the morons who voted for them...twice...in the face of clear evidence that it was a dumb thing to do. and don't even try to fob that one off on Congress.
- bjornski, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7You're right about that, RobotBuddha.
Conservatives are now the LAST people who give a ***** about conserving anything. They've become the "I'll use up as much as I can as fast as I can" party.
You're right, though. Neo-CONS have no interest in conserving anything.
Granted, true conservatives don't think that way, but they keep voting for these Neo-CONS to represent them. I can understand their frustration, but THEY are the ones that wanted these people to represent them. - Dellitron, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5Democrats like IT .. WE ALL LIKE PICKINS PLAN !
the man is a American Hero putting up his own MONEY
to make this happen for US !
Drilling is a thing of the past .. you have to be a moron to
think we will drill our way out of this Oil mess ...
We are damm sick of our money .. being sent overseas
and to 2 bit dictators like Venezuela. - emkaysmith, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4I saw something recently (sorry, I can't come up with a citation) that if only 15% of the available "open" rooftops in the U.S. (i.e., those not encumbered by chimneys, overhanging trees, etc) were covered with the current crop of high-efficiency solar panels (which can be made to look like shingles now, so as not to be obtrusive), that could produce as much as HALF the electricity we use. Even if those figures are optimistic, I think generous tax credits for solar implementation -- especially to corporations with huge factory roofs available -- would help a great deal.
- regeya, on 07/20/2008, -3/+7Well, the common misconception is that "conservatives" will do anything they can to quash alternative energy plans, which I would have thought would be the intention there.
What's really conservative is what's happening here--a private sector individual proposing something which, given current economic realities, is cost-competitive with what we're already using. - inactive, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4"you can't have a variable level electric power grid"
What makes you think they would? Cover a large enough patch of land with wind turbines and you can predictably generate a continuous baseline level of current.
Also, you sound kinda dumb. -
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is