The problem with this plan and others...
After a person learns a certain amount, they tend to think they know enough to have the answers. It is rare and beautiful thing when you come across someone that knows that we really don't know anything and the only thing that is certain is it is more important to ask the right questions than to think you have the answer. Rest assured, if you are sure you know the answer, you are wrong.
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
The Pickens Plan sounds great, and I applaud the fact that he is doing something. However, I think that if you start asking questions about what you hear there is much to be desired.
What will happen if we replace >20% of our power generation capabilites with a source that we cannot control? (A gas turbine can be turned on when needed in a relatively short period of time. If the wind isn't blowing, 20% of the country is without power.)
What will the impact of using natural gas in a machine that has an average efficency of 20% (and a maximum of around 40%...automobiles) instead of a machine that averages 40% (gas turbine for electricity generation) and has already acheived 60% efficiency (combined cycle gas turbines) and has not yet reached its limit? (This seems to be contrary to the generally accepted practice of "increasing" efficiency and using resources more wisely.)
How will home utility prices be affected by replacing a cheaper source of power (natural gas) with a more expensive one (wind)? Wind is free, (technically it isn't because land owners have "wind rights" and must be paid for them) but the turbines and service contracts are not.
Why will it take so long for nuclear power to be a player? The technology is 50+ years old and relies on technology that exists today and materials that are readily available. (If you discount nuclear power because it is an unsafe, not well understood technology, consider yourself uneducated because that is not true.)
If you think the solution to the energy crisis is to use a more expensive alternative when a cheaper fuel is available (regardless of the environmental impact) you are either rich or have your head in the clouds.
If you think there is no energy crisis and this is all a government/corporate scheme to get our money, you are under-educated and should rememdy that.
The only way we will shift from fossil fuels (foreign or domestic) is to have a cheaper, as reliable, as available energy source. The way to get there is to penalize people that use energy irresponsibly (in the form of a luxury/wasted resource tax) and use the money to finance whatever improvements are necessary to make other solutions cheaper, as reliable, and as available as fossil fuels.
For example, any retailer that has an open air refrigerator should have to pay a wasted resource tax for cooling their merchandise/the air while using a heating system to keep the air inside the store warm. All that revenue can go to solar engineers to increase efficiency/reduce manufacturing costs of panels.
Any wireless device (that is not for medical use) should have a luxury tax. All the revenue generated can be given to hydrogen fuel research to replace gasoline as automobile fuel. (The technology exists today to make hydrogen for automobiles at $2/gallon and internal combustion engines can operate on hydrogen. The problem is there is not a good way to store hydrogen. That problem could more than likely be solved if funding were available. I am fully aware of the hydrogen debate but don't care. Gasoline engines weren't that great when they were put into use. Improvements are made over time after a product is introduced.)
I don't claim to know everything (or anything). I do know that being rich doesn't make you smart and being smart doesn't mean people will listen to you.
T. Boone has a plan, a lot of money, and should be challenged, not blindly followed. What good will any of this do us if his plan is flawed?
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Clark on -
You bring up several good points. I'm a new member (last night) and I have been thinking about the ridiculous task of organizing hundreds of thousands of people into one cohesive group. Each of us comes with our own experiences and opinions. Each is an expert in their own realm. The one, consistent theme that I have embraced by joining is that we MUST do something and each individual voice will be amplified many times over. I do not know if Pickens' plan as stated will work 100%. I do know that we simply have to develop and promote affordable and efficient technology. The details of how this will be accomplished may be included in the Pickens plan or, more probably, by many different plans working together to reach the same goals. In the meantime, our leaders will be aware that a large group of people cares about the situation. We can educate ourselves and others. A grassroots movement (not blindly following) may bring enough momentum to set this nation in the right direction.
-
Permalink Reply by mike braaten on -
welcome aboard thank you for bringing positive common sense to the table.you are right .it may not be the answer but its a goodstart. mike
-
Permalink Reply by Rick on -
I too am a new member, newer than you infact, so welcome to us both. I agree with what you say about a grassroots movement, especially not blindly following, is what is needed. I believe that the first goal we must focus on is to stop importing oil. I was shocked to learn that we have gone from importing 35% of our oil at the time of the first oil crisis in 1973 to 60% today, our leaders collectively have failed us miserably. We must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to our enemies, and giving them an increasingly powerful weapon to use against us at the same time. To continue that, imho, is pure insanity. I truly hope, and am doing what little I can do, to get a grass roots movement going to demand our government stop oil imports as quickly as possible. Drilling cannot solve our problem in the long run, but it can buy us time.
We need to make some fundamental changes in our society to reduce our gluttonous consumption of oil and energy. Our consumption levels are one of the underlying reasons for our loss of respect through out the world.
Rick
-
Permalink Reply by Warner on -
Many of the folks who write pages here have nothing but good intentions. But sadly their
ideas to fix whatever problem may fall short of their ideals.
The idea that we can always tax the whoever you think is causing the problem may not be
a good idea after all. It may put an unnecessary burden on someone who can least afford it.
I have suggested that we go to the FairTax to help us achieve energy independence and
to help us deal with the current financial crisis we are seeing now. The FairTax seeks to
have a national sales tax instead of the income tax. Because all taxes are already included in
the price we pay for any item, it just makes sense. We are already paying the FairTax, we just
dont all it that. The savings would be immediate. All the funds deducted from your paycheck
now would be in your pay when the FairTax Act is passed.
See www.fairtax.org
I believe we all have good intentions and that we will use the savings from the FairTax to
spur investment for technologies in the future for clean and domestic energy. I think we
all agree on that.
Complicated tax schemes and such just waste money and dont achieve much. They do
create a lot of paperwork and are sometimes geared to help those who dont need the help.
Let's go ahead with the PIckensPlan now. But let's use the FairTax to help finance it.
Thanks
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on -
There is no such thing as a "fair tax". The flaw of the fair tax is our government only gets revenue if we buy something. The rich would just buy things from forgein sources, which gets us back to forgein dependance on items.
The "fair tax" is unfair to the poor since it makes items already expensive more expensive. The fact that poor people sometimes get more money back in their taxes than they paid would be eliminated and those people would be worse off than they are under the current system. I don't think this is supposed to get too political, though.
-
Permalink Reply by Warner on
-
Ok...I never meant this to be too political. I do agree with the PickensPlan
but it will take a lot of investment to be realized. Meanwhile money is tight
because of higher energy costs. We need to free up capital to invest in the
future.
I think the FairTax is a way to help the poor pay their bills while encouraging
investment in the PickensPlan or other worthy projects. Taxation of capital
gains stifles investment and the innovation in technology we need today.
I cannot argue about what the rich or anyone else would do under the FairTax.
Likely they would discover that the prices of any item would not rise because
the hidden taxes that we pay would be gone. An item costing $100 before the
FairTax would cost about the same after. Perhaps it would cost less. The reason
to go overseas would not be a factor.
The FairTax will allow for a rebate each month to everyone for taxes paid on
necessary items. This in fact un-taxes the poor and middle class who need
those funds. Under the FairTax we keep our whole paycheck. I think the poor
will like that.
The FairTax seeks to end the IRS and the waste of that system which
costs us hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The income tax does
not build any turbines or convert vehicles to natural gas. It does waste
money doing paperwork.
I think we can all agree that our system of taxation harms the poor and the
middle class.
Remember, we are, in fact, paying the FairTax now in the sense that all
the taxes we pay are basically included in the price of whatever we buy.
The FairTax seeks to collect what we are already paying as a sales tax and
end the waste of the income tax.
See www.fairtax.org. Many of your objections are discussed in The FairTax Book
by Neal Boortz.
Let's go forward with the PickensPlan for energy independence and the
FairTax for tax independence
Thank you
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin S on -
The notion of switching from income to consumption taxes wouldn't free up a single penny for anything as it doesn't reduce government spending, so that's irrelevant to the issue of energy planning. But we do need a way to put renewable energy on an even footing with non-renewable sources by matching tax breaks and other advantages to the fossil fuel industries. We're spending at least $1 billion/day now defending our access to Middle East oil supplies, so let's invest an equal amount in renewable energy.
-
Permalink Reply by SJC on -
It seems like lots of people think that they have THE answer to all of our problems. Whether it be a tax plan or any other plan that claims to get at the "root" of the problem. None of these will solve anything. Unless you can prove that they are at the ROOT of several problems and will solve all of those problems once and for all, you are just creating another problem.
This just shows me that there is an extreme vacuum of leadership. When the people on the street or on a keyboard think that they have a solution to all of our problems, you know we are lost. The present administration was put there to get Saddam, get the oil and raise the prices. Throw in a few tax breaks to make the rich richer and you are done. Mission Accomplished.
-
Permalink Reply by RAS on -
I don't think anybody here feels that the Picken Plan is the only solution.
It is a plan and it will help us "bridge" to alternatives.
That is the real key, get a breather (imperfect as it may be) to get us from here to there.
We all know that Solar, Hydrogen Fuelcells, nuclear , wind, tidal and alot of yet to be developed things will get us to the next 200 years of humanity.
Now, get a move on it and lets all do our part.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew Andresen on -
Some good questions, hopefully I can answer most of them.
1. There are a number of methods to store energy to make up for the intermittent nature of wind. One of the most promising is compressed gas in underground storage. Also, when you spread out the renewables over the whole country intermittences becomes less of a problem. IE, maybe the wind stopped blowing in Texas, but it's still blowing in Kansas.
2. As for using resources more wisely, I think the main point is we are switching from a foreign resource to a domestic resource.
3. Natural Gas isn't always cheaper than wind, and when you factor in all the externalities, wind is probably one of the cheapest sources around.
4. I think one of the main points is the price you pay at the pump or from the meter isn't necessarily the true cost. It doesn't factor in things like sending money to pay for terrorism, or health care related to burning of fossil fuels. We can pretend these don't exist, but they do, and we are paying for them.
5. Agreed, eventually renewables will be cheaper not even considering externalities. But in the meantime we should press ahead anyway. Costs will continue to come down as we switch to mass production mode, and as technology continues to improve.
6. The easiest method to control waste is to simply have the price equal the true costs. This discourages waste, and keeps the government out of your life. It's also much more efficient.
As already mentioned the Pickens Plan won't fix everything, but it's a good step in the right direction.
Thanks,
-
Permalink Reply by Questions on
-
I wasn't really looking for answers. I, like everyone else, am already convinced I know everything. I asked the questions to spark thought and debate.
I am not interested in getting into a political debate. It probably isn't very likely you could find two people that agree on what is a fair tax. The taxes I suggested don't penalize the poor. They are not taxes on necessities. They are taxes on luxury items. Another factor that is spurring the "energy crisis" is the fact that the lines of needs and wants have blurred.
You can't have price equal true cost. It is an oversimplication that does not allow for profit to drive improvements.
Profit and competition spur improvment. If you eliminate the ability for an entity to profit from an endeavour you also eliminate any interest in said endeavour.
Our grid is already outdated and over stressed. Transmission and storage of energy results in more waste, which blurs the "true cost" of wind generated energy.
-
Permalink Reply by Mathew Andresen on
-
"I, like everyone else, am already convinced I know everything"
LOL, probably one of the most honest answers I've ever heard.
Anyway, having the price approximate the true cost doesn't necessairly eliminate profit. I think most economists would agree with you that the profit motive is necessary to get things done, and would figure that in to the true cost. Also, we don't need to get exact with true cost, just get a reasonable approximation.
Finally agreed our grid is outdated. The solution though, is going to be a high voltage DC backbone, with energy storage. I think it will look something like a combination of wind and solar http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
To build a sustainable future it's pretty much the only way.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
