Large Scale Central

T. Boone Pickens

Saw T. Boone Pickens commercial for his “plan” for the first time today.
http://push.pickensplan.com/video/video/show?id=2187034%3AVideo%3A7392
Right on sir!
I’ve been saying the exact same thing… on these forums.
Ralph

Ralph:

I agree with Pickens’ pitch.

However, out here in the People’s Republic of California, there is already a large outcry against Pickens’ recommendations and plans.

First there is a serious resistance to power transmission lines. As a current example, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison (power companies) want to build a large solar power plant out in the south eastern CA deserts (where the sun shines!), but the power would be used in the Los Angeles to San Diego population corridor. That requires transmission lines across the desert and over the coastal mountain ranges. This plan is being fought tooth and nail by the very folks who would use the power. The basic problem is that the power lines are ‘ugly’. Note that these same folks are also totally opposed to off-shore drilling, wind farms anywhere close to their scope of habitation (and in most cases, anywhere), and any kind of new energy plant construction including nuclear, LNG, bio-fuel, etc.

The northern California wackos are out in force decrying Pickens as a ‘profiteer’, warning that the birds are going to become extinct due to wind farms, protesting the necessary transmission lines, and about a hundred other goofy objections.

Many of these folks are of the serious opinion that we need to nationalize the oil companies, put on federal price controls on fuel and food, and grow our own bio-fuels in the back yard alongside the pot plants. They are totally opposed to the Iraq war on the basis that it is ‘only about oil’, yet fight any attempt to expand U. S. oil exploration and production. Of course many of them also seriously believe they personally should be exempt from most energy saving requirements, as their ‘work’ to ‘save the planet’ is more important than the rest of us. I think the term is “elitists”.

These elitists drive around in their Japanese hybrids with a big battery system that will soon require hazardous waste disposal (which does not currently exist on the necessary scale) and feel good about themselves while attacking anyone or anything that might provide long-term solutions to our energy needs.

T. Boone Pickens has a long hill to climb!

Happy RRing,

Jerry

Jerry,
The “Greenies” are just going to have to realize there is always a price to pay.
Unless they are willing to turn off their electricity and ride horses…they are being elitist hypocrites.
The Pickens Plan is certainly much “greener” than what we are doing now.
Ralph

Jerry Bowers said:
Ralph:

I agree with Pickens’ pitch.

The northern California wackos are out in force decrying Pickens as a ‘profiteer’, warning that the birds are going to become extinct due to wind farms, protesting the necessary transmission lines

T. Boone Pickens has a long hill to climb!

Happy RRing,

Jerry


I would think Mr. Pickens company profits from the current oil situation.
I can’t speak for Mr. Pickens, but I doubt his ulterior motive, if he has one, is money. The large investment he is making will most likely not reap profits until after Mr. Pickens is gone.
Who knows, maybe he is looking for a legacy.
What he is probably looking to do is fix things for his grandchildren before even Walmart has Middle East owners.
Ralph

I’ve noticed on all the train forums that the single number one group to make fun of is environmentalists. Take a look at the posts here and notice how often someone makes claims about “whackos” (isn’t that Rush Limbaugh’s term?) or makes broad claims about how “the environmentalists” or “the greenies” are all etc etc etc. blah blah. These claims are always fact free–the poster typically just makes up a bunch of claims and attributes “the environmentalists” all supposedly agree on. It’s a constant theme, and I’m not sure quite why. I don’t now if it’s the age of posters, or if it’s people like Limbaugh, or what.

Years ago I was taken, as a gift, on a river rafting trip on the North Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho. One of the few rivers left in America where you can safely drink the water. The trip was expensive, and almost all the guests were wealthy surgeons and lawyers–very rich guys. One of their favorite conversation topics was “environmental whackos” and their comical extremist antics, etc etc --just like here. I finally said on like the fourth day “well why do you think you can drink from this river? If it wasn’t for “environmentalists” this piece of pristine nature would not be available, and there’ be a taco bell at every campsite.” My comment made little impression–it wasn’t about making sense, it was about making up a fantasy group of people (environmental whackos) and making fun of them.

As far as I can tell, “environmentalists” are no more united or single minded than any other group–in fact, they seem to me to be far more divided in their goals, aims and methods. There are environmentalists, a small minority, who want to go completely off the grid and grow their own food; there are environmentalists who want large scale high technology solutions; there are people for whom the word means access to nature and national parks. There are environmentalists who want wind farms, and those who don’t. Often people here post about how “the environmentalists” are contradicting themselves. No, they aren’t–there is no “they.” “Environmentlaists” are as various and divided as any other group.

I have not looked at Pickens’ recommendations but right away skepticism seems reasonable. If a guy who made a huge fortune in the oil business starts telling me what I need to do I’m going to look at my wallet right away. Is it not reasonable to point out that despite the rising costs of their raw material, Exxon made 11.7 BILLION in PROFITS–not net, but profit, last year? Who do you think put that $1,300 A SECOND into their pockets? You and me.

Pickens might be right–as I said, I haven’t looked yet. But really, I could just write a standard cut and paste post for denouncing environmentalists, and then people could save time. Something like this:

“Can you believe it? The enviro whackos are at it again. Even though (insert proposal here) the environmentalists are saying no. But they also want to do (insert other proposal here). And these are the very same nutjobs who (insert claim here). It used to be that in America (choose one: we had respect for property, a man’s home was his castle, we understood the meaning of freedom, people counted more than animals) but now thanks to the greenies, we all have to (insert anachronism: eat tofu, grow organic turnips, save the whales).”

I didn’t use the word “whacko”.
The fact is, solar power and wind power are “green”.
I did call them hypocrites, and I’ll stand by that.
I am not a Republican, but how can I take Al Gore serious when he lives in a 12,500 sq. ft palace? He buys “energy offsets”, from a company he owns. Now if that isn’t an elitist…

Mike…Here is a real example. If you don’t believe me I’m sure you can Google it and find the newspaper story.

We recently had demonstrators at a new coal fired power plant they are building in Cliffside, NC.
The new plant will produce 8 times the power of the old plant, with 1/2 the emissions, making it 16 times cleaner. Four “dirty” plants will be shut down. And they are protesting…Maybe I should have used the word “whacko”.

Mike, maybe you should hear what the man has to say. I’ll be more concerned about my wallet if things continue as they are.
Ralph

Mike,
What is with your “there is no they” ?
So you use words like “someone” and other words to lump us here on the forums into the same kind of generalizations you keep crying about.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Ralph

Little of our electricity comes from foreign oil. To get free of mideast oil, we need to fix our transportation system.

I left Sophira in Lake Bluff yesterday when I went to the city to run.

“Aren’t we going to Chicago this morning?”

“Do you really want to spend all day on the Edens?”

“Good thinking. I’ll wait here by these trees.”

Ralph, the evidence is all round–do a search for “environmentalist” and see what comes up. You do it in your own post.

That plant you mentioned is cleaner because of environmentalists. Go ahead and criticize the environmentalists protesting outside–but they are clearly not the same people as the environmentalists who pressured the coal industry to develop cleaner plants. Do you think the coal industry would have developed cleaner plants without pressure from environmentalists? Me neither. So how come your example only describes “environmentalists” as hypocritical extremists?

Tom Ruby said:
Little of our electricity comes from foreign oil. To get free of mideast oil, we need to fix our transportation system.

I left Sophira in Lake Bluff yesterday when I went to the city to run.

“Aren’t we going to Chicago this morning?”

“Do you really want to spend all day on the Edens?”

“Good thinking. I’ll wait here by these trees.”


The idea is to divert the natural gas (currently being used to produce electricity) to transportation, as well as electric cars.
Ralph

mike omalley said:
Ralph, the evidence is all round--do a search for "environmentalist" and see what comes up. You do it in your own post.

That plant you mentioned is cleaner because of environmentalists. Go ahead and criticize the environmentalists protesting outside–but they are clearly not the same people as the environmentalists who pressured the coal industry to develop cleaner plants. Do you think the coal industry would have developed cleaner plants without pressure from environmentalists? Me neither. So how come your example only describes “environmentalists” as hypocritical extremists?


Hey,
I’ve made contributions to environmental groups.
You make the same kind of generalizations about us. But that’s OK. Your problem is you don’t practice what you preach.
Everybody makes generalizations. You do it while riding a platform against it.

I did not use the word extremist. Once again you are putting words in my mouth.
The example I used for hypocrite was Al Gore and the word I used was elitist.

As for T. Boone, you have generalized him as someone who’s pockets are being filled by you and I. Of course, he couldn’t have “pure” motives.
Ralph

The way I see it, there’s a difference between “environmentalists” and “conservationists”.

The environmentalists are extemists who think that mankind is a blight on the face of the earth. To them, humanity is the enemy. These are the over-emotional, brainless wackos, naysayers and NIMBYs who oppose everything while offering no realistic solultions of their own. They want to “save” the environment by locking it up and throwing away the key.

Then there are the conservationists. These are people who want to save wild places FOR people, not just from people. Most anything worthwhile that is accomplished in the environmental realm is done by conservationists - the environmentalists just like to take the credit.

Well said Ray !
I would certainly consider myself a “conservationist”.
I drive a POS Ford made by Kia that I hate to drive. I bought it used. I was doing this before the price of gas went sky high. Meanwhile, my pick-up, which I love to drive, sits in the driveway.
I only run the A/C at home when the forecast is for 95 degrees F or higher.
In the Winter my heat at home only runs at night…set to 62 degrees F.
I applaud the fact a power plant that is 16 times cleaner is being built that will allow 4 “dirty” plants to close.
I collect rainwater to water my garden with. When that is not enough, I bail it out of the creek.
Just a few of the things I do.
Ralph

Ray Dunakin said:
The way I see it, there's a difference between "environmentalists" and "conservationists".

The environmentalists are extemists who think that mankind is a blight on the face of the earth. To them, humanity is the enemy. These are the over-emotional, brainless wackos, naysayers and NIMBYs who oppose everything while offering no realistic solultions of their own. They want to “save” the environment by locking it up and throwing away the key.


Ok, here’s an example–how many people, actual living people, not imaginary people, fit in your first category? There might be some people who are “over-emotional, brainless wackos, naysayers and NIMBYs who oppose everything while offering no realistic solultions of their own,” although I’m guessing there can’t be more than a couple thousand of them at best. Then there are NIMBY’s who don’t want, say, a coal fired plant in their backyard–can’t say I’d blame them, I wouldn’t want one in my backyard. If a NIMBY offered a solution of putting it in YOUR backyard, would he still be a brainless nimby with no realistic solution? Or would he have to go in a new category altogether? If someone says “nay” to nucleare but yes to a wind farm, is he and environmentalist or a conservationist?

I just think there’s a ton of stereotyping going on here and a straw man is being regularly beat up. The number of people who fit the stereotype oif environmentalists being advanced here is incredibly tiny, if it exists at all

Google the story Mike. The protesters were mostly(not every single one, Mike) from out of state. Several arrests were made. Not one was a local. The locals(not every single one, Mike) support the plant.
Local TV video showed most(not all, Mike) of the cars had out of state tags.
Now I’m not offering any proof. Anyone who does not believe me can Google the story.
I have made my best effort in writing this in a way that is MC.
Ralph

Hmmmmmmmmmmm…

Conservationist and Conservative have the same root word. Very interesting.

Steve Featherkile said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

Conservationist and Conservative have the same root word. Very interesting.


So true.
I just don’t consider our current administration to be conservative. I see nothing conservative about lowering revenue while borrowing trillions.:lol:
I can call myself a millionaire, doesn’t make me one though.
Ralph

Australia is hoping to introduce a carbon emissions trading scheme in 2010. When the launch was announced several days ago, several major multi-national companies who drill our shores for gas and oil, immediately made comments that further investment in the industry would be terminated as it was not cost effective under a carbon emission trading scheme. Consumers, like big business, think that a ‘clean’ future will not have a cost attached to it. At least business can pass on the added cost to the consumer. Air will no longer be ‘free’.

If it were not for people with ‘vision’ then how many of our world heritage listed sites would still exist. Land the size of many countries is cleared annually of its forests so that we can read a newspaper daily and then discard as landfill. Trees scrub the atmoshere of carbon dioxide, considered one of the major causes of global warming. It seems that rather than breathe clean air, we would rather read about global warming in our daily newspapers and then think, “I must do something about it, one day” as we discard the newspaper in the bin.

Ralph Berg said:
Well said Ray ! I would certainly consider myself a "conservationist". I drive a POS Ford made by Kia that I hate to drive. I bought it used. I was doing this before the price of gas went sky high. Meanwhile, my pick-up, which I love to drive, sits in the driveway. I only run the A/C at home when the forecast is for 95 degrees F or higher. In the Winter my heat at home only runs at night......set to 62 degrees F. I applaud the fact a power plant that is 16 times cleaner is being built that will allow 4 "dirty" plants to close. I collect rainwater to water my garden with. When that is not enough, I bail it out of the creek. Just a few of the things I do. Ralph
Bye the way. This does not mean I am cheap.:lol: Ralph

Ralph, I’m not disagreeing with your specifics about the protest–I’m sure it happened. What I’m disagreeing with is the blanket labeling of environmentalists. As I said, there would be no such thing as clean air regulations, or coal fired plants that endeavored to burn more cleanly, if it wasn’t for environmentalists. But the pleasure here seems to be mostly beating up on a straw man labled “environmentalists,” who can be imagined as --as Ray put it–“extremists who think that mankind is a blight on the face of the earth. To them, humanity is the enemy. These are the over-emotional, brainless wackos, naysayers and NIMBYs who oppose everything while offering no realistic solultions of their own.”

I mean, maybe I’m wrong–maybe there really are people like that–brainless wackos and naysaying nimbys. Millions and millions of people like that, maybe, and they are controlling our politics. I’ve never met one , though I keep reading here about them and what a grave danger they are and how they are ruining everything, and Rush likes to talk about them a lot.

I’m more concerned about what Exxon does with that 11 billion dollar profit than I am about straw men. Straw men can’t buy any influence in Congress