Contact your Congress critters to let them know that you are tired of high gas prices.
Posted on 08/12/2008 9:56:20 PM PDT by Kaslin
eek, Pelosi refuses to consider GOP energy proposals that don't include massive government subsidies for so-called eco-alternatives that have never panned out.
Which brings us to Madame Speaker's 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income'" of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. -- Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens -- former oilman turned wind-power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos.
Pickens and Pelosi share the same talking points downplaying the need to drill and open up more access to American oil. Instead, the Pickens pie-in-the-sky plan proposes to replace natural gas with wind power in power generation and theoretically free up natural gas for America's transportation needs.
All well and good in la-la land, but let's be real about the limitations and costs of wind power. Past and ongoing experience demonstrates the unreliability of wind and the miserably low operating capacity of wind power facilities here and around the world. Depending on wind requires supplemental fossil fuel plants as backup to be turned on and off to compensate for wind power supply shortfalls -- nullifying any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, which are miniscule, according to the National Academy of Sciences.
Not to mention the thousands of sliced-up birds and other wildlife that have become wind power casualties -- a problem scientists say would be solved by "repowering" old turbines at a cost of untold billions.
Fittingly, the environmental mascot of the Democratic National Convention -- the showcase of their alternative energy approach -- is an eastern Colorado wind turbine propped up with Democratic carbon-credit funds that has never produced any substantial energy because of its chronic equipment malfunctions.
But I digress.
Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi's friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies.
Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him.
As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:
"She, and other investors, stand to gain a substantial return on their investment if gasoline prices stay high, and municipal, state and even the Federal governments start using natural gas as their primary fuel source. If gasoline prices fall? Alternative fuels and the cost to convert fleets over to them become less and less attractive."
CLNE also happens to be the sponsor of Proposition 10, a ballot initiative in Pelosi's home state of California to dole out a combined $10 billion in state and federal funds for renewable energy incentives -- namely, natural gas and wind.
Follow the money. Or, to put it in economist's terms as energy analyst Kenneth Medlock III did in an interview with The Dallas Morning News about the Pickens multibillion dollar wind farm investment: "A lot of what he's trying to do is add value to a stranded asset he's obviously got millions of dollars on the line."
And so, potentially, does the Democratic Speaker of the House -- all the while wagging her finger at the financial motivation of others.
How much stock does she or hers have in this?
There is only one place wind power works. That is Yucca Valley, CA, where the wind blows fast and constant. Otherwise you will need replacement energy for when there is no wind.
If wind and solar are viable they are viable. There need not be any special laws passed. If wind is wonderful and solar is solid; nothing is preventing you, knock yourself out.
We don’t need another ethanol scam played out at the expense of taxpayers. The PACS need to be hitting Pelosi early and often. I would just runs ads of her saying America needed to elect Democrats because gasoline was too expensive ($2.33 at the time) and that the Rats were going to bring us relief. It reached prices of over $4 in that 2 years span. Thanks for the help, Nan!
Contact your Congress critters to let them know that you are tired of high gas prices.
However, they tend to dice a lot of raptor birds. Not Pretty. Most enviros hate them.
The tech is also problematic. They are prone to terrible problems with harmonic vibration and maintenance is an obvious issue with a huge motor on top of a 40 ft tower.
"Naturally, the Pickens Big Wind plan is proudly endorsed by Do-Nothing Pelosi's friends at the obstructionist Sierra Club. Through another company, Mesa Power, Pickens has committed upward of $12 billion in wind farms on the Texas panhandle. CLNE and Mesa Power are separate entities, but what benefits one piece of the Pickens puzzle benefits them all. The wind venture, as Pickens himself acknowledges, depends on permanent federal subsidies. Pickens is banking on 'em. And Pelosi is banking on him. As reported on dontgomovement.com, Speaker Pelosi bought between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Pickens' CLNE Corp. in May 2007 on the day of the initial public offering:"
Holey Moley, Nancy is in T. Boone-doggle Pocket-Pickins pocket!!!
On a nationwide basis, wind power is useful -- AS AN ADD-ON -- not otherwise. Same as solar in a lot of ways.
The only way that I can see wind or solar as being usefull applications is if they are operating in stand-alone mode. That is, if they produced hydrogen or desalinated water. Trying to tie them directly into the power grid is a waste of time.
The disclosure of Nazi Nan's investment in Picken’s Wind adds a whole new level of reprehensibility to Nan's actions in Washington, D.C. Tell me someone, does this constitute a conflict of interest?
I hear you and if the smell test is correct; it sure smells like fresh air and a bright light needs to be focused on this situation.
“pelosi and the big wind boone-doggle...”
these people have to be psychotic.
The political Left would have you believe that we taxpayers are heavily subsidizing “Big Oil” here in the United States – at a time when they are enjoying “excessive” profits. Further, the implication is that it is the fault of the current President and his policies.
Research shows that while there are some subsidies going to the Oil Industry, it is completely out of proportion to the subsidies going to other energy sectors. This information was gathered from a Department of Energy Report* entitled “Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007” published in April 2008, by the ‘Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels’ and independent subordinate agency of the U.S. Department of Energy.
According to the report, as of 2007, the Subsidy to each of the following industries is expressed as a function of Megawatt hour of power generation by industry was:
Coal: $0.44
Nuclear: $1.59
Natural Gas & Liquid Oil: $0.25
Hydroelectric: $0.67
Wind: $23.37
Solar: $24.34
In reality, the majority of the Federal subsidy ‘attributed’ to the ‘Natural Gas & Liquid Oil’ industry has been in the form of direct subsidies paid to assist low income consumers (home heating) with rising energy costs and indirect subsidies associated with tax credits associated with such things as fuels with lower ozone-depleting emissions and expenses associated with new sources of crude-oil and natural gas.
Many people think that the oil industry is getting rich at the expense of the public. The truth is that figuring either return on investment or percentage of profit based on the retail price, Oil Company profits are not out of line.
The Political Left is laying plans to impose wind-fall profits tax on oil companies. Senators Clinton & Obama have said that they want to take oil company profits & invest them in alternative energy. From the figures contained in the report referenced above, it’s obvious that alternative energy (Wind and Solar) are already heavily subsidized. Of course, without specifically so stating, the Left also envisioned raising the taxes on oil and gas to pay for the additional subsidies they would provide to ‘alternative’ energies.
Oddly, the Left has always opposed nuclear power, originally because it was related to nuclear weapons, secondarily because of Chernobyl; and they have long been against the coal industry because of scam of man-made Global Warming.
* See data cited in report at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/subsidy08.pdf
Page 106, table 35
To me, wind is one of the worst forms of “alternative energy” to come along. I just got back from Spain, where every hill and mountain is topped by rows of these huge ugly windmills. They produce relatively little useful energy, make a roaring sound when the blades are turning, kill entire flocks of migratory birds that run into the turning blades (invisible when they’re turning), and are an absolute visual blight.
With one nuclear plant - clean, safe, located in a relatively out of the way area - they could probably produce more energy than all the windmills in the world combined. But the enviro contingent is for some reason fixated on these ugly, destructive things. I guess the receipt of government subsidies could certainly be one of the reasons.
Good stuff; thanks!
Ping to xcamel for your list regarding “sustainable” alternative engergy.
I remain a big fan of Boone Pickens. He has been a generous philanthropist who literally puts his money where his mouth is. I believe him when he says that his wind energy plan is not a replacement for the need to drill oil. I admire his efforts to replace some of our reliance on oil with the wind energy alternative—but I do not like the suggestion that he, who has a long history of staunch support for the GOP, is somehow in collaboration with the anti-drilling faction of the Democratic Party—namely with Nancy Pelosi. It is noteworthy that Pickens no longer ends his wind energy ads with “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.”
While the information provided in Michelle Malkin’s post explains a major reason why Pelosi is fighting offshore drilling—and it’s not for the environmental reasons she claims—I refuse to believe that she and Pickens are in cahoots. Instead, I take from the information from Malkin that while Pickens is seeking an alternative energy source in addition to drilling for oil, Pelosi is merely hoping to increase her personal fortune by holding the efforts to end our dependence on foreign oil sources hostage.
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.