Posted on 07/29/2008 4:06:53 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is pushing a national campaign to make the U.S. "energy independent" through wind power and vehicles that run on natural gas. His blitz of TV ads featuring his own down-home voice has picked up a lot of admiring news coverage. To date, Pickens has yet to explain whose dime will pay for this.
Well, Californians can clarify exactly whose dime it will be: Ours. Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backerof the stealthy Proposition 10 on California's November ballot. This measure would authorize the sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives -- but by the time the principal and the interest is paid off, it would squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money on Pickens' self-serving natural gas agenda
...Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology. Engines that run on compressed natural gas have a place in pollution reduction, especially for heavy trucks and public buses. But natural gas is a nonrenewable fossil fuel that we import from foreign sources, and it is no better (and in some cases worse) when it comes to emissions and fuel efficiency compared with the best hybrid cars or the new ultra-clean diesel engines. Most insidiously, Proposition 10's lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I think this writer still his his panties in a wad over the Swiftboat Vets Ads. Until I read that paragraph, I was was giving this article a little credibility.
Not saying I don’t think Pickens isn’t planning on cashing in on some of the ridiculous alternative energy mandates the Left has in store for us.
Follow the money.
Actually, Pickens has been very up-front in stating that without subsidies, his plan makes no sense. So it is a raid on the treasury masquerading as an energy program, as far as I am concerned.
Why do we, as a country, want to invest in expensive technology when good, cheap, well developed energy sources are available in abundance and without subsidy, if we just lift the restrictions? This is madness!
The government should just get the Hell out of the way and let the markets take care of this. If Pickens can make a buck on CNG and windmills, he should. If he can't make a buck, he has no business doing it.
Oil is still the best energy source.
Because they won’t be around forever? Why are you against diversifying where we get our energy from?
I am all for diversification. I am against subsidies. You can have one without the other, you know.
Right now, oil is expensive. This makes other forms of energy attractive, even without subsidies. The government should just step back and let nature take it’s course.
As oil becomes progressively more scarce, alternative energy will get even more attractive. All without dipping into the taxpayer’s pocket.
Personally, I’m putting a big-ass spinnacre on my minivan this morning. If you hear someone on I-95 screaming “tacking to starboard!”, you might want to watch out.
Gridlock,
As usual, clear, concise, and correct.
From your mouth to God's ears.
Carolyn
It isn’t like the taxpayers have no say in it. It is on their ballot. Either they will willingly part with their money or they won’t.
I think he is also buying up water from the indians in Oklahoma. Their water will now be used to create power for Texas.
The ballots failed here the first time but will pass this time.
Most taxpayers figure that they are having somebody else part with his money. That is why they always want to tax the rich.
>>”Why do we, as a country, want to invest in expensive technology when good, cheap, well developed energy sources are available in abundance and without subsidy ...”<<
Which energy sources are these?
Oil and Coal, mostly. Natural Gas, as well. Throw in Nuclear.
All of these can be developed economically without subsidy if the government would just step aside and let it happen. There is no need to pine for Pie-In-The-Sky whey we have plenty of pies on our plate.
Looks like fossil fuels & nukes get some hefty subsidies to me.
Source: http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Subsidy.pdf
That may well be true. I would not advocate subsidies for any energy source. Market forces should decide which energy source grabs share of the market.
But past mistakes should not be used as a reason to make newer, larger mistakes.
I believe most of his water rights are in Texas as well. The pipleline he is proposing to build will pump water and power to Dallas from West Texas.
This jumped out at me...
The author seems awfully sure of himself that natural gas is "nonrenewable", I'm not so sure, and I doubt, if questioned, that the author could provide a scientific defense of this.
And WHY are we importing for "foreign sources"? Because greenies use the gov't and the courts to stop domestic sources.
Hey, LA Times - TREES are a "renewable resource" and you watermelons don't want us to use those either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.