Comments on: T. Boone Pickens' Plan to Catch the Wind

By: Ol' Whip

Ol' Whip — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:00:19 +0000

Having grown up in Texas I can feel safe in saying that a plan that benefits T. Boone Pickens probably aint gonna benefit me.

By: CMED

CMED — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:46:36 +0000

can we send nuclear waste on a rocket and send it to the sun? can we send nuclear waste on a rocket into a blackhole? I think the sun is the better choice because we do not know whats on the otherside of a blackhole, what squooshing radioactive nuclear waste will do, rip through time-space continuum?

By: DaveW

DaveW — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:44:50 +0000

Energyhog, in general I think you make some good points, but recycled nuclear waste is cleaner and cheaper in the long run? We can't decide what to do with the nuclear waste we've already got. I'm not against nukes, but I have to agree with Obama that we can't talk nukes until we solve the waste problem once and for all. Solve that problem, politcally and practically, and you've got a nuclear solution.

By: Energyhog

Energyhog — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:11:51 +0000

I wouldn't that his plan is very reasonable, although i some areas good and useful – but not on a large scale. You still have to pay for the infrastructure for coal/gas/nuclear plants because the win doesn't always blow. Texas has the most wind farms yet on the hottest days, the wind doesn't blow causing the citizens to pay for all the backup generators and emergency generated electricty (which is charge indirectly to the citizens at a higher rate). This wind power stands to make Pickens much richer at the expense of the taxpayers which will still have to pay for all the generators and plants. The wind power cannot be stored in batteries since they generate AC current and wind blows too much, they shut down since they have to stay within a frequency that won't surge the power lines. The most viable solution is nuclear energy and recycling nuclear fuel which produces little waste and is much cheaper/cleaner in the long run.

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:25:28 +0000

He at least has a more rational solution than everyone else. He's not talking about mysteriously generating more natural gas; he just wants to reallocate it. Also, it took 80 years to develop gasoline. It's refinement involves removing it from the ground, shipping it around the world, heating it to 700 degrees F, and then 1300 degrees F, and then shipping it across the country to your pump. While I think hybrids, soy diesel, and ethanol-gas are more important to automotive development, at least someone is pointing out that automotive is less than 25% of the problem and advocating solutions to our greatest power needs.

By: Nolan P.

Nolan P. — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:18:33 +0000

C'mon T. Boone: Support Ralph Nader! He's all for your plan. Obama is big-time flip-flopper on this issue, not to mention an out-an-out liar.
Check his record…

By: scotty

scotty — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:57:49 +0000

There is a public Forum for discussions about Pickens plan :
http://www.pickensenergyplan.com
Cheers.

By: hilo08

hilo08 — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:06:31 +0000

Thanks, Skye for the link. The CSPAN video ended when it was getting really interesting–Pickens the geologist was rather animated. He's doing something great in pushing alternative energy and doing so without an obvious political agenda; he didn't give Bush a lot of credit for pushing biofuel.

By: Clueless Joe

Clueless Joe — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:02:00 +0000

Hi. Welcome to, "The Joy Of Swift Boating With T. Boone Pickens." First, I'd like you to paint a nice little boat here. Ahh. That's better. Broad, broad, strokes. Here's a bird, stuck in the oil. Let's call him Barack.

By: skye

skye — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:49:16 +0000

Check out the video on the main site, it's a bit more succinct.