Picken's $700 Billion Plan

[Poahi]

We need relief Today.

Okay, what's your short term solution?

 

[coolyokeluke]

Again:

Pickens is using Taxpayer dollars to do this. The guy is an ASS.

Oil mogul and corporate raider T. Boone Pickens launched an energy plan and social-networking campaign on Tuesday that calls for replacing Middle Eastern oil with Midwestern wind.
The so-called Pickens Plan would exploit the country's "wind corridor" from the Canadian border to West Texas to produce 20 percent of the country's electricity.
Transmission lines would be built to transport the power to places in the U.S. where the demand is. The natural gas, now used to fuel power plants, would instead be used as a transportation fuel, which burns cleaner than gasoline and is domestic.
He proposed that the private sector finance the investment, which would result in a one-third reduction, equal to $230 billion, in the U.S.' yearly payments to foreign countries.
Pickens has already invested heavily in wind, notably a planned 4,000-megawatt wind farm in his native Texas.

So where's the taxpayer dollar part come in? And you already subsidize coal, oil, and nuclear.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I haven't heard of Pickens using Public Financing.

His advertising campain, website, etc. is coming directly out of his own pocket.

The windmill farm in TX is being paid for by investors.

Maybe the transmission line system to get the electricity from the farm to the cities it will serve is public money???

Normally, utilities using private and/or public money build the lines, as it benefits the companies customers and the public.

We ARE now, and have been, heavily subsidizing oil, coal, utilities, gasoline, airlines, aircraft production, highways/trucks, waterways/shipping, etc., etc.

cliff
YIP

 

[OHGOON]

We don't build that type of design - not safe enough.
Those who really understand Nuke power also know that it can be very safe.
Consider this - was Three Mile Island really a "disaster" (as the ignorant media and enviro wackos would have you believe)? Perhaps if you took a more careful look at what happened there you would view it as proof that the containment strategy and safety systems designed into our nuke plants actually work.

Yup those ignorant enviros and their loathsome media.......

Ever check into the cancer rates around nuclear power plants. It is not a pretty picture. Off course it can't "conclusively" be tied to the plants but hey, I am sure you would welcome one in your neighborhood right?

Never mind that the waste, fission technology generates, is the bigger issue. To this day many existing plants store their waste in local water pools because no one wants to roll that stuff away through their neighborhoods. No one has ever addressed the waste issue other than burying it in Nevada or elsewhere, which is no solution because no one can scientifically guarantee that any storage solution will outlast the half life of that stuff.

Yup lets keep doing what we've been doing. We should drill everything, everywhere and use "nucular" That way we could ignore reality for at least another month and then we could...........oh whatever as long as we don't try anything new because we 'know' that won't work because the current energy industry said so!

 

[JimNtexas]

More people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island.

It is interesting to me to hear the Al Gore types telling me that I have to drastically lower my standard of living because the world is going to end in ten years because of anthropogenic global warming and then turn around and tell me nuclear power is too dangerous to consider.

The same folks also tell me that we need to be more like Europe, but Europe is building nuclear plants as fast as they can.

There have been huge advances in the design of nuclear reactors in the over 30 years since we've opened one here in the U.S.

We need more drilling, more nukes, more wind, more solar.

No of this is mutally exclusive. Unless you are a liberal Democrat who wants to see the U.S. taken down a notch or five.

 

[Soverytired]

Dude, did you just say that natural gas is plentiful and cheap??? LMAO!!

The price has doubled over the past year and production in North America is basically peaking now. Or will in the next few years. Now imagine what will happen if you introduce a gargantuan new source of demand for this fuel (personal automobiles).

Natural gas WILL be the transportation fuel of the 21st century. It is relatively plentiful, and relatively cheap. It's cleaner than oil, is easy to transport using existing infrastructure, and it is very, very easy to switch current engines to run on it.

Of course, it suffers the same artificial constraints in the US that oil does . . namely, Congress won't let anyone drill for it. This WILL change, because it's a fuel alternative the little people can use, and they're going to demand it.

Will it last forever? No. This is just a stupid argument though . . nothing lasts forever, but the best fuel is the one that make sense for existing market forces. Oil gets too expensive . . switch to natural gas. NG gets too expensive . . switch to "magic Al-Gore Fuel" which sadly, doesn't yet exist, and remember all you "Manhattan Project II" dreamers that spending trillions doesn't guarantee success (re: think about all the money spent on AIDS or Cancer with no cure in sight).

The world will eventually have to go with what's available and what's proven. Natural gas fits the bill nicely.

 

[OHGOON]

More people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island.

It is interesting to me to hear the Al Gore types telling me that I have to drastically lower my standard of living because the world is going to end in ten years because of anthropogenic global warming and then turn around and tell me nuclear power is too dangerous to consider.

The same folks also tell me that we need to be more like Europe, but Europe is building nuclear plants as fast as they can.

There have been huge advances in the design of nuclear reactors in the over 30 years since we've opened one here in the U.S.

We need more drilling, more nukes, more wind, more solar.

No of this is mutally exclusive. Unless you are a liberal Democrat who wants to see the U.S. taken down a notch or five.

Kennedy, Clinton or whomever Rush is telling you to hate tomorrow is totally irrelevant to this discussion......oh my, all those evil Al Gore types making you give up your God given right to your Ford Extinction or whatever you define as "drastic lowering" of your standard of living. You really are the victim here aren't you?

Drilling the last parts of our wilderness which we will never get back so that your kind can continue to live in a fantasy world for another year or two is unacceptable. Having faith that the same folks that brought us Iraq, Katrina and Gitmo will somehow make nuclear power safe because of so called "huge" advances in design is delusional. Of course I am forgetting that you "Fixed News" addicts are not really too interested in facts that contradict your myopic world view in the first place.

As for the so called liberal Democrats wanting to "take down the US a peg or five". It really would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically ridiculous! The only ones who will pull the US down are those of you unwilling to admit that the cheap energy era is over and if we, as a society, fail to invest in the technology of the future we will be left behind for good.

 

[Poahi]

More people died in Ted Kennedy's car than at Three Mile Island.

It is interesting to me to hear the Al Gore types telling me that I have to drastically lower my standard of living because the world is going to end in ten years because of anthropogenic global warming and then turn around and tell me nuclear power is too dangerous to consider.

The same folks also tell me that we need to be more like Europe, but Europe is building nuclear plants as fast as they can.

There have been huge advances in the design of nuclear reactors in the over 30 years since we've opened one here in the U.S.

We need more drilling, more nukes, more wind, more solar.

No of this is mutally exclusive. Unless you are a liberal Democrat who wants to see the U.S. taken down a notch or five.

Wow, Jim,

Well said. Someone who gets it.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Yup those ignorant enviros and their loathsome media.......

Ever check into the cancer rates around nuclear power plants. It is not a pretty picture. Off course it can't "conclusively" be tied to the plants but hey, I am sure you would welcome one in your neighborhood right?

Never mind that the waste, fission technology generates, is the bigger issue. To this day many existing plants store their waste in local water pools because no one wants to roll that stuff away through their neighborhoods. No one has ever addressed the waste issue other than burying it in Nevada or elsewhere, which is no solution because no one can scientifically guarantee that any storage solution will outlast the half life of that stuff.

Yup lets keep doing what we've been doing. We should drill everything, everywhere and use "nucular" That way we could ignore reality for at least another month and then we could...........oh whatever as long as we don't try anything new because we 'know' that won't work because the current energy industry said so!

Apparently you are one of those ignorant enviros you mentioned.
Yes I have checked into cancer rates. Yes I know quite a bit about Nuclear Reactors - more than your little brain can comprehend. Knowing what the Sierra Club talking points say does not make you smart.

Here is a clip from a study in Illinois. One of many you can find and read.

ABSTRACT​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

BACKGROUND: There has always been public concern over the cancer risk for people living near nuclear facilities. With a number of nuclear power plants operated throughout the state of Illinois, the current study was conducted to address this concern.
OBJECTIVE: Examined the pediatric cancer risk in relation to the proximity of nuclear power plants in Illinois.
METHODS: Evaluations were conducted at both the county and ZIP code levels. Age-adjusted cancer incidence and mortality rates for children aged from 0 to 14 for years 1990 to 2002 were calculated for nuclear facility county group (NFCG) and nuclear facility ZIP code group (NFZG), respectively, and then compared with those for the matched non-nuclear facility county group (NNFCG) or non-nuclear facility ZIP code group (NNFZG). The statistical significance of the rate difference was determined from rate ratio and associated 95 percentage confidence interval. Rates based on state and national levels served as additional comparisons. A Poisson regression analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of proximity to nuclear power plants on cancer incidence while adjusting for race, sex and age.​

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for NFCG or NFZG were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants. The Poisson regression model showed that proximity to nuclear power plants was not a significant indicator of variation of cancer incidence. This study confirmed research findings reported previously in Illinois. However, continued monitoring of cancer risk in the concerned area is warranted.
[/FONT]

As to the waste issue - there are solutions. The best answer is probably long term on site storage within a containment facility similar to that for the reactor core.