Granted, Custer had a plan also, but I think T. Boone has thought his out better.
In short, it would use wind power to replace the current natural gas electric generating plants and use the natural gas to power automobiles. I have no clue if his numbers work out, but it is a start!
I am a big supporter of wind power so of course I think his plan is great. And best of all, it is nowhere near Teddy Kennedy's yacht, so I guess Teddy will be on board.
But this is not the only way. One reason I want government to stay out of the energy issue is that there needs to be multiple roads. Instead, all government has given us is an ethanol subsidy that does nothing but increase corn prices.
If I had my way, this is what would happen:
1. Allow more drilling in the Artic and offshore. This will ease uncertainty and speculation which is what is responsible for much of the recent run up. This is only meant to be a temporary measure however, to give time for other things to come online.
2. Pass the Zurbin plan requiring that all gasoline powered cars must be triple flex fueled within three years of passage. The technology is there already (and US car manufacturers have an advantage right now). The triple flex fuel portion is to drive some production into methanol, which does not use food crops, though it is less efficient then ethanol.
3. End the corn ethanol subsidy. It does nothing.
4. End tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. Brazilian ethanol is sugar based and has a much higher energy output/energy input than corn ethanol.
5. Pass regulations on shale oil production.
6. Throw up no barriers to the importation of Canadian tar sands oil.
7. Exploit the Bakken field.
8. Electric cars are great. The electricity has to come from somewhere. Reduce barriers for wind farms.
9. Build a new generation of nuclear plants.
10. Listen to T. Boone.
Did I leave anything out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
"...all government has given us is an ethanol subsidy that does nothing but increase corn prices."
Actually, Anthony, it does far more harm than simply that.
Since ethanol is approximately 25% less effective in generating energy than petroleum based products, the more ethanol substituted for gas in your tank (10%... 15%... 85%...) the less mileage your getting out of every tankful. (*SHRUG*)
Also... another description of a government subsidy is... GOVERNMENT SPENDING TAX MONEY ALREADY COLLECTED and/or FAILING TO COLLECT TAXES IT OTHERWISE WOULD.
(*SHRUG*)
Now... related to the "bang for the buck" math of ethanol, interestingly enough you note that beyond ethanol there's methanol - which you go on to point out is even less efficient than ethanol. Yet... if I'm reading your post correctly... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... you seem to support its use anyway.
Huh...? Please explain. Perhaps I'm missing something. In fact... I must be! Help a cyberbrother out, Anthony! (*GRIN*)
Seriously... DEFINE what you mean by "flex fuel" in the sense of this discussion and clarify what components of "flex fuel" you're favoring and which (if any) you're opposed to. (In other words, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to get clarification of what it is you're calling for with regard to "flex fuels.")
As to the vast majority of the rest of your proposals... you (and Mr. Pickens) are preaching to the choir. (*WINK*)
BILL
If we buy energy from Brazil and Canada, we are still sending dollars to foreign countries, even if not to Arab ones--that's still dependence on foreign sources.
>If we buy energy from Brazil and Canada, we are still sending dollars to foreign countries, even if not to Arab ones--that's still dependence on foreign sources.
That is true, but nothing is going to happen overnight. In any event, I do not believe true and complete energy independence is possible, but that (i) we can and should become less energy dependent and (ii) oil is a corrupting influence and need to stop sending $$$ to nasty countries IF we have to send energy dollars offshore, I would rather those dollars go to Brazil and Canada
T. Boone does indeed have a comment about a plan...which puts him far ahead of anyone in the Bush side of things. I think that however he may state it as a plan, it is more of a what if than anything. But, to his credit, his "what-ifs" are more on point as theory that any semblance of a plan has been in the current administration. So he gets high points for considering the absolute value of things by bringing up the questions that need to be asked, and the issues that must be looked into before anything can be fixed. Yes, to many of the issues he has brought up...no, to whether or not this summary of "what-ifs" reaches the latitude, depth or propensity to survive as a plan. Good work anyways, and thanks for the enlightenment!
Jazz
I have to disagree with you almost entirely... There is nothing about t boon that is libertarian. First of all he is lobbying strongly for massive regulations to artificially reduce the cost of wind power. He has already been granted emenint domain and has taken huge chunks of land in the texas panhandle. You say ethonol is bad for our economy... I agree But wind power is much worse. The return on investment is somewhere around 3 percent. That dosent even cover the intrest on the loan. Of course if T Boon is successfull in his efforts he will be so highly subsudized by our goverment that it will seem cheaper.
I beleive the true fix is to get rid of government regulations forbidding us from building more refineries. Abolish all oil subsidies (making alternitive fuel more attractive for investment). End the war in Iraq. Balance our budget which will cut inflation. Let me know what you think.
I have to disagree with you almost entirely... There is nothing about t boon that is libertarian. First of all he is lobbying strongly for massive regulations to artificially reduce the cost of wind power. He has already been granted emenint domain and has taken huge chunks of land in the texas panhandle. You say ethonol is bad for our economy... I agree But wind power is much worse. The return on investment is somewhere around 3 percent. That dosent even cover the intrest on the loan. Of course if T Boon is successfull in his efforts he will be so highly subsudized by our goverment that it will seem cheaper.
I beleive the true fix is to get rid of government regulations forbidding us from building more refineries. Abolish all oil subsidies (making alternitive fuel more attractive for investment). End the war in Iraq. Balance our budget which will cut inflation. Let me know what you think.
Maybe I should look closer at the plan details before saying I am in favor of it. But I think wind power is one of a number of ways to go foward. My concern is that government will determine THE way (as they are with corn ethanol) and that will be a disaster.
Oil is finite and while I support more drilling, I do so mostly because we need more oil now to transition into something else (whatever that else is).
>I beleive the true fix is to get rid of government regulations forbidding us from building more refineries.
Agreed there. I saw somewhere that Congress just declared an old industrial site in New England a 'scenic river" which will stop the construction of a LNG depot.
>Abolish all oil subsidies (making alternitive fuel more attractive for investment).
Agreed also.
>End the war in Iraq.
If Michael Yon is to be believed, that is already happening.
>Balance our budget which will cut inflation.
I agree there also.
Post a Comment