|
|
June 19, 2013
|
|
Gone With the WindPosted on Jul 12, 2009
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens has dropped his plan to build a huge wind farm in Texas, citing financing problems and challenges posed by the economic recession. The collapse of the project adds weight to the notion that we won’t have practical alternative energy generation until the governments of the world, and the populations they represent, make lasting commitments of money and attention. What’s more important than the heft of Pickens’ wallet is whether we ever find a way to get out from under the crushing consequences of our shameless and profligate consumption of hydrocarbon fuels. It’s not likely there will be widely usable new energy sources until the governments of the world, and the populations they represent, commit big money to finding out what works and paving the way to realizing new approaches. Pickens is now looking to drill into the federal government’s vault, and that is causing some criticism. But what’s at stake here is unimaginably bigger than the question of whether this controversial entrepreneur should be subsidized. Our very future as a world civilization may be riding on finding solutions to climate change. Surely there must be some answers hiding within the collective intellect of the globe’s 6.7 billion people. (That number itself is a big part of the problem.) If you aren’t properly scared by the fix the planet is in, read the new book by James Lovelock, “The Vanishing Face of Gaia.” (Click here to see a review in the Los Angeles Times and here to read long excerpts at Google Books.) After absorbing the predictions of Lovelock, the originator of the so-called Gaia hypothesis, you may feel the need to pour yourself a large tumbler of Scotland’s best medicine and ingest regular doses until the trembling eases. Wake up, people. What’s on the sign of that disheveled fellow on the street corner may finally be true: The End Is Near. At least the end of the life we have known. Let’s buckle down and refuse to fall into the darkness without putting up a good fight. Advertisement Previous item: AG Considers Torture Investigation Next item: Kim Jong Il Reportedly Has Pancreatic Cancer New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Sepharad, July 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment
Amon and Inherit, just goes to show you can’t trust anyone just because he/she has a downhomey-but-adventurous name. Boone Pickens. What a moniker. What a letdown. However, the Ogallala aquifer is worth learning more about.
Report thisBy Folktruther, July 13, 2009 at 11:48 am Link to this comment
Remember, Amon, you can tell people anything when they’re laughing.
Report thisBy Amon Drool, July 13, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment
folk: “But, hell, i don’t worry about it, why should you.”
u got a “way” about u that makes me chuckle. i’ll keep on picking my spots…and thx for the encouragement
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 13, 2009 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
It just goes to show that the wind power was just icing on the cake T.Boone Pickens is REALLY pushing: wide-spread fast-and-loose domestic natural gas development as the answer to foreign oil. Clearly, he wants the pols so scared they lift all development controls and pollution restrictions, and, if he’s lucky, they’ll subsidize it with MORE taxpayers’ money as well!
Thanks, Boone. It’s good to know you were just another phony after all.
Report thisBy beeline, July 13, 2009 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
The UK’s Energy and Climate Change secretary has just opened an inland wind farm on the borders of Kent and East Sussex. He believes that projects such as this will not only help fight global warming, but will help create jobs and bring the country out of recession.
Report thisBy Folktruther, July 13, 2009 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
Gosh, Amon, that’s fiendishly clever. You should write more, you have something interesting to say. Don’t worry about the details, I don’t.
Of course there is always the possibility, I suppose, that the more you write, the less useful the writing. But, hell, I don’t worry about it, why should you.
Report thisBy C. Curtis Dillon, July 13, 2009 at 2:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
(continuation of previous post)
But, what if you’re wrong? What if global warming is for real? If we do nothing, the consequences could be disastrous. Melting ice caps and rising water levels are already swamping many islands in the Pacific. As this continues, coastal areas around the world will be inundated by water. Salt water invades many underground water supplies, rendering them unusable. The polar ice caps (especial in the north) disappear and the Atlantic conveyor shuts down. Moderate winters throughout the Northern hemisphere disappear. If some projections are correct, we could enter a thermal spiral that would see world temperatures increasing without end. Can’t happen, you think? Why is Venus so hot? Because its atmosphere is thick with CO2 which traps the sun’s heat. World food production plummets as weather patterns change. Mass starvation is a logical consequence of this. As the air (and oceans) grow warmer, storms of ever increasing intensity batter the world. Hurricanes of category 5 become more common (anyone still remember Katrina?) and reach further northward as water temperatures rose. And consequences we haven’t even considered may make things even worse.
So consider your position. If you are right, we just spend money and do some really good things for our country. We reduce our dangerous dependence of the black gold. We clean up our environment and help our kids live a healthier life. We even create some really cool new industries and put people to work. But, if you’re wrong and global warming is real, you have helped perpetrate a disaster on humanity unlike anything we have ever known. Do you really want to take that chance? I don’t. I owe my children (and yours) more than that.
Think about it!
Report thisBy C. Curtis Dillon, July 13, 2009 at 2:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Those of you who dispute global warming ... let’s conduct a worst case analysis of your position.
First, let’s assume you are right ... global warming is just a scam. Everyone accepts your position and we do nothing. What happens? We continue our dependence on foreign oil and become even more captive to countries that don’t always agree with our political agenda. We start strip mining large swaths of the west (if the locals let us do that ... or do we just take their land because you need gas for your guzzler SUV or to heat your big, poorly insulated McHouse). We’ll drill the hell out of Alaska (Sara would be happy) and get a few more barrels there. Who gives a damn about a few hundred Caribou anyway? Just remember, those deposits won’t last very long as America consumes 20.6 million barrels of oil per day (over 7.5 billion barrels/year) and demand is rising. If we forget the global warming part of this equation, oil and coal still have a big downside. There is significant pollution from coal-fired power plants including Radon gas (a dangerously radioactive element that causes lung cancer and other problems). More people die from coal-fired power plant emissions than any other energy generator. To feed the ever increasing number of coal-fired power plants needed to sustain our ever more greedy lifestyle, we strip mine large sections of the country to feed this appetite for more coal (and start using the especially dirty sulfur coal which has even greater environmental consequences). To get the maximum efficiency (and profits) from our plants, all environmental controls are removed and our environment (and our bodies) are brutalized even further.
Now, let’s assume you’re right but we decide to pursue a green strategy anyway. It takes lots of money (the ultimate renewable resource ... we just keep the presses running a little longer). We significantly reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, eliminate much of the dangerous emissions from those pesky coal-fired power plants, clean up the still foul air around our biggest cities (anyone been to Denver or LA in the summer?) and create new industries to compete against those that already exist in Europe and Asia. We keep the hydrocarbons where they belong ... in the ground. At the very least, we save them for future generations that can use them to create new medicines, new plastics and other more useful applications than just burning something mother nature spent millions of years brewing for us.
(continued)
Report thisBy Sepharad, July 13, 2009 at 12:17 am Link to this comment
Folktruther, am glad to hear about the Netherlands project. Trust the Dutch to continue benefitting from their above-land-level sea, which would have long since destroyed a less resourceful culture. The San Diego financing solar cells with house sales plan, also smart. I don’t know. Maybe communaly we can take advantage of some of these ideas (economies of scale?) even now. A lot of people are out of work, a lot of people need somewhere decent to live ... where is it written that we have to wait for the government to organize us?
Report thisBy Folktruther, July 12, 2009 at 11:32 pm Link to this comment
You know, Sepharad, I think they did put some kind of wave dohicky in the water near the Netherlands, where they have a whole bunch of turbines in the sea. There is a great many in Livermore, to take the smell off of tne nuclear bomb laboatory there.
there was a guy in San Diego who built a whole bunch of houses, half of them with solar cells on top, giving buyers a choice. They could finance the cells with the house. there is no reason why new houses couldn’t be built with solar cells, but there is no way to coordiate and implement such a communal plan in a neoliberal economy.
Report thisBy Amon Drool, July 12, 2009 at 11:31 pm Link to this comment
google “boone pickens ogallala aquifer” to get some idea of what the boonster is up to here. tis late at night and i’m in no mood to research it, but the story goes something like this:
t boone has acquired land in texas on which the windmills will be built. he has also acquired some land on which the transmission towers will be built to get the electric power to population centers. some of this land is above the ogallala aquifer…a massive body of water that stretches from south dakota to texas. this aquifer came into existence after the last ice age and gets replenished at a VERY slow rate. texas law has something like a “capture” clause enabling the owner of land complete capture right to all minerals, water,etc. beneath his land. the boonster could suck out much of the aquifer (kinda like what the kuwaitis were doing to oilfields that straddled the kuwaiti/iraq border) and sell the water to drought-striken metropolitan areas in texas. the path he would use would run along the transmission lines for electricity generated by the windmills.
smells like 25% green and 75% greed
Report thisBy Sepharad, July 12, 2009 at 10:56 pm Link to this comment
There are some pretty big wind farms in parts of California, and would imagine many more in the plains’ states, in some of which, I recall, people go a little batty because the wind never stops blowing. Seasonal desert winds too. (In southern New Mexico, there were many ranches where the windmills actually powered most of the operation.
Another constant phenomenon that could be harnessed is the power of incoming waves. Lots of coastlines.
Although there are many solutions to our power problem, I tend to agree with the gloomier posters that so far Obama isn’t throwing enough money in the right direction.
Report thisBy Folktruther, July 12, 2009 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment
While the US is persuing the solution that Anarcissie has outlined, the Chinese are building seven new wind farms, each bigger than any that has been built before. And they are setting up giant solar cells in the Gobi desert, which is kind of the New Jersey of China.
That’s because the party controls the billionaires (so far) rather than the billionairs controlling the economy. It is certainly not socialism, but it is a far better kind of capitalism than neoliberal capitalism.
Report thisBy hippie4ever, July 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment
The assumption here is that energy is something that must be centralized; if it isn’t big and profitable it’s not viable. I think about the cookstoves of India that run on cow chips; the small windmills you can install on your roof to power CFL lights, energy conservation via weatherproofing and double-glazed windows, the use of plastic bottles to sanitize water; hybrid cars. They won’t solve the problem by themselves, but the more individual steps taken, the smaller the overall carbon footprint.
The energy giants will do their best to dictate the terms of the debate; entire options will be dropped—just like health care—but in time the problem will solve itself, at our expense. As is always true, the People will end up picking up the pieces and living with the mess.
Report thisBy P. T., July 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment
Capitalists will not invest in things that will take such a long time to start showing profits. Historically, if such projects are to be done, government has to get in it.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 12, 2009 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment
Come on, Obama is solving the problem. By continuing the disastrous monetary and regulatory policies of the last 30 years, and the soon-to-be-disastrous attempts of the Bush administration to save the rich from the consequences of these policies, he is leading us to the next crash, which will be bigger than the previous one. This will sharply reduce the use of petroleum by its chief wasters, the American people. The price of petroleum will then go down, enabling India, China, Brazil, Russia and so on to gas their move to whatever they’re going to move along to, probably something including alternate sources of energy. The bankrupt, impoverished U.S. will bring its armies home so we can fight one another instead of a bunch of dirty foreigners. Clean air, clear skies, blood in the streets—what more could anyone want?
Report thisBy gezelda, July 12, 2009 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Yeah ... well ... what about that 8 billion per month that has been spent for several years by the Pentagon to destroy Iraq, and now Afghanistan? And it’s still going on.
Those billions could have been much better spent, doncha think? So . . . ? Do something? Write your Congresspersons? Join Greenpeace? Send a contribution to Union of Concerned Scientists? Phone Obama? Expose the “clean coal” scam?
Report thisBy ardee, July 12, 2009 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment
Its the economy of course. The way our government throws billions around is not as important as the way they consistently throw it in the wrong directions.
At the risk of sounding like a pedant I will repeat that the Obama administration is nothing more and certainly nothing less than Bush 2.0.
Report this