<p>[PickensPlan:</a> The Plan](<a href=“http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/]PickensPlan:”>http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/)</p>
<p>thoughts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The moratorium was lifted barely a month after it was put in place due to public outcry.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/03solar.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1216571376-HSagXp+b5Z+5NtdxrbfX8g[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/03solar.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1216571376-HSagXp+b5Z+5NtdxrbfX8g</a></p>
<p>razorsharp, Although I believe that reversing the offshore drilling ban is too little/too late, I think you and I are on the same page about the consequences of peak oil and rising oil prices. Most of my friends and relatives still think I’m in lala land when I bring up the subject of peak oil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It already is.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean, the oil companies just jump on the opportunity to lease these federal lands without any real scientific evidence that there might be oil/natural gas reserves there? How do they know there’s nothing there if they’ve never drilled? And if they know there’s nothing there without drilling, why did they buy the leases in the first place? That seems, well…dumb.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Drilling for oil is extremely expensive and very risky. Oil companies often bid on leases with the “hope” that oil will be there. In many instances oil may be present but not in sufficient quantities to justify the huge expense of drilling. It is very difficult to determine the amount of oil that exists in a particular area. The US government maintains the most data on the availability of oil, and that data is usually what would best be described as a guess.</p>
<p>Picken’s plan is brilliant. It is a step in the right direction. Picken’s plan is that we build windmills to provide electricity and divert the natural gas that would otherwise have been used for electricity into fueling automobiles. Natural gas is widely distributed to many homes and it is not difficult to convert your home natural gas source into a fuel pump for your natural gas vehicle. The only problem is that there is only one automobile fueled by natural gas and it is made by Honda. The other problem is that windmills don’t always generate electricity because the wind doesn’t always blow. I hope Mr. Pickens is successful. He recogizes that this will only be a transition system to some other fuel source of the future.</p>
<p>1) Nuclear.
2) Drill.
3) Tax free R&D for energy.</p>
<p>This is a plan that makes sense.</p>
<p>
There’s nothing happening today that didn’t happen 35 years ago. There’s no new information today that we didn’t know 35 years ago (except for the fact that global warming means that dependence on fossil fuels is doubly damaging to our future generations.) So why do you propose doing the same thing we did then - nothing? We are going to have to make a shift from fossil fuel to alternative sources of energy sooner or later - why do you fight doing it sooner? Why do you insist on making it easy to do nothing - or at best, take half-measures? This is the same mentality that cut taxes and ran up huge federal deficits over that same time period - let’s take the easiest path now, and to hell with what it does to our children and grandchildren.</p>
<p>I say we suck it up and make the actual sacrifices that may be necessary to develop an economy that doesn’t require cheap fossil fuels to exist. Even if it takes hard work.</p>
<p>
Lead the way.</p>
<p>1) Don’t use plastic. At all.
2) Don’t use airplanes. At all.
3) Don’t use gasoline. At all.</p>
<p>We all feel the consternation that seems to be coming. I don’t understand why we can’t all come together with an uni-lateral plan that bridges the energy gap for the next 20 to 30 years. We all seem to agree that our goal is energy independence from the Middle East. We all desire eventual freedom from our dependence on fossil fuels. Where there seems to be disagreement is how painful a transition are we willing to tolerate, and at what cost!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oil companies can lease federal lands for up to 10 years at $2 to $3 an acre. Leases are very attractive to oil companies because they can count them as assets, which makes debt refinancing easier and attracts investors.</p>
<p>At a recent meeting of the National Governor’s Association, MIT Professor Richard Lester addressed the need for a Marshall Plan for energy innovation:</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Ever since the first oil embargo, Presidents, academics, energy producers and energy pundits, religious scholars (Thomas Robert Malthus) have forecasted the “Limits to Growth” . For six years in W’s administration we had a pro-energy program, and a compliant Republican controlled Congress; And all we got, is a prolonged War that promised security for the mid-East and by extension, USA. </p>
<p>Perhaps the ex-policymakers are giving us a warm-up to the next phase of Energy use and production? </p>
<p>I have positioned myself to be on the higher ground for energy, as much as I can afford and practically do.</p>
<p>Remove the subsidies on energy, transportation, and see how fast and efficient our industry will become. There will be a period of severe hardship but a long, painful suffering procrastination has gotten us no further will not solve current problems</p>
<p>Faith Birol, chief economist at the IEA, recently warned that non-OPEC oil could peak in two years. In the future, he believes that most new oil will come from a small number of national oil companies, increasingly sidelining international oil companies. He says the world is entering a “new world order” where demand growth is coming from China, India, and the Middle East instead of the US and Europe. He believes oil prices will remain “extremely high” for the foreseeable future and that governments must “act urgently” to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. (The IEA will publish a comprehensive report on the state of the world’s oilfields in November.)</p>
<p>Other countries are furiously positioning themselves with regards to energy security. China has been buying up oil and goodwill all around the globe, while building up its blue-water navy. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett says China’s navy will soon be larger than ours. In Russia, Medvedev is aggressively pursuing his energy strategy by building pipelines, buying oil and gas in the Caspian region, and making energy deals in Africa and Iran. The Russian navy also recently boosted its combat presence in the Arctic region. US officials have reportedly gone “ballistic” over Russia’s energy-positioning moves.</p>
<p>Matthew Bryza, the US deputy assistant secretary of state for Eurasian affairs, recently said: "The monopolistic Gazprom is behaving like a monopolist does. It tries to gain control of the market as much as possible and to stifle competition. And that’s clearly what is going on. The Kremlin wants Gazprom to be a dominant force in global energy, and the dominant force in global gas. Tying up gas resources in Central Asia and Africa is part of that. The plan is for Gazprom to dominate in every corner of the planet.”</p>
<p>These are some of the reasons I don’t see the US getting out of Iraq anytime soon, no matter what the presidential candidates say. We may draw down our combat troops, but I believe the US will maintain permanent bases in Iraq for years to come. </p>
<p>[Asia</a> Times Online :: Central Asian News and current affairs, Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan](<a href=“http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG19Ag01.html]Asia”>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG19Ag01.html)</p>
<p>“Don’t use airplanes. At all”</p>
<p>That’s silly. The problem here isn’t consumption, it’s overconsumption. Therefore, the solution isn’t starvation, it’s moderation.</p>
<p>
I say it’s all irrelevant. Cost is the perfect discriminator. If people want to pay for petroleum based products, let them. I don’t need people preaching to me on what I can or can not buy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, Kluge is wrong. At this point in time, alternative energy is a pipe dream. Solar does not fill an auto’s fuel tank. Wind does not fill and auto’s fuel tank. Corn based ethanol is not an efficient source of fuel and cannot replace oil by any standard. It will be the next generation of cellouse ethanol that has the potential of replacing oil, but that will take ten years. [/uote]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Razorshap, might you believe that the people who advocated for a rapid deployment of alternative energy proposed “Pickens’ plan” … decades ago. </p>
<p>At this stage, we view most common sense ideas as brilliant, yet continue to dismiss workable solutions as pipe dreams. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it’s a mistake to believe that our only energy problem is one of transportation. Our cost of electricity and natural gas is as important, if not more important for our economic well-being. The reality is that we CAN survive gasoline costs of $5, $7, or even $9.00 per gallon. We can survive with some sacrifices. After all, that is exactly what Europe has been doing for years. In fact, a period of high prices AND sacrifices is exactly what we need to realize the value of making investments in … pipe dreams. </p>
<p>You seem to dismiss energy conservation and efficiency as pipe dreams or “ideas” that crimp our lifestyle. Well, crimping our lifestyle that is based on senseless consumption of cheap energy is exactly what is needed. If the alternative to lowering a thermostat to 74 degrees is having no AC at all, the choice is easy. When buying efficient light bulbs represent a ROI of 6 months, it does make sense. </p>
<p>The biggest canard about alternative energy is that we expect it to REPLACE fossil fuels. That is not the case; alternative energy sources help us lower the demand and eliminate the current lack of reserves in supplies. The cost of oil is based on the delivery of the last millions gallons. </p>
<p>Our country has grown fat and lazy because of the availability of cheap oil, and we have naively believed it would stay like that forever. We DO have the technical skills to bring better technology to the market, but we our combination of impatience, our insistence of short term revenues, and lack of long term planning and foresight is what got us here. </p>
<p>That, and our love of the famous NIMBY!</p>
<p>This what makes investments in public transportation and incentives for moderation in consumption more attractive:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Makes that carpool or bicycle look good! And the four cars per family a bit worse.</p>
<p>^^ The words of a smart person whose life is mostly still ahead of him. Xiggi is going to have to deal with the consequences of the decisions today’s “parent” generation are making. And (at least on energy!) he’s dead right. What’s more, his assertion years ago that we should be taxing fossil fuels to pay for the conversion to less wasteful alternatives was right then as well.</p>
<p>
But Mr. Payne, you overlook the fact that the “price” of energy doesn’t equal it’s “cost.” The long-term consequences of fossil fuel burning are unfunded. If you added a tax onto every gallon to fund the kind of reclamation efforts we’ll need to see in coming decades as a result of global warming alone, the price would skyrocket. We subsidize fossil fuels by pretending that there’s no consequence to burning them and dumping the waste products into the air. But there is. That’s why the pure capitalist model always breaks down when it’s possible to run away from a part of the cost of the economic transaction. There really is no free lunch.
What it boils down to is that you’re “preaching” to the rest of the world that they have to suffer the consequences of your decisions.</p>
<p>I more or less agree with Xiggi and Kluge, here.
At least until Kluge had to interject religion into the topic.</p>
<p>When times were good we needed to bank up with research tech, funding and national plans. The luxury of time has passed us by. Now it is a shuffle…at best. </p>
<p>Here and now, to complain that every necessary thing will take too much time (research, drilling, conservation applications) is beside the point. What was once an option is now a necessity.</p>