"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." "The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources. But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs -- from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle." T. Boone Pickens' 'clean' secret - Los Angeles Times I knew the guy wasn't trustworthy.
This was a secret? Pickens is a businessman. OF COURSE he is doing this for profit. He wasn't an oil man because of good will. He was an oil man because he wanted to make money. Likewise, he now thinks he can make money with wind power. Capitalism works, albeit slowly sometimes.
Ok so he wants to make more money. The alternative is we do nothing and keep sending money to people that want to kill us. No one else has anything that we can do right now this very minute. Everything else is years away. If California wants to run with it then thats up to the voters of California. I would agree with the article though that it should not exclude any other alternative to oil.
Duh. Private profit and public risk. He got the state of Texas to fund his infrastructure. He's going to do the same thing here if he can. CA is not a natural gas state. It's a solar state. And he may see his legislation amended and revised to broaden it.
Replacing a dependence on oil with a greater dependence on natural gas is just destructive. This is the outcome of the Pickens plan. The windpower part is to figure out a way to stop having power plants burn Natural Gas and enable vehicles to burn it instead. Please note that US Natural Gas production is declining, so it should be no surprise that the eventual outcome will be a dependence on foreign gas (as well as foreign oil). Read the article closely. The author was wise enough to see the loophole that would result in CA footing the bill for out of state companies to get CA rebate money to finance vehicle purchases and modifications. There is no advantage to having CA ripped off by the Picken's plan.
Yes, imagine that, he actually wants to make money! The nerve of that guy! It's nice to know we have people like you to dedicate all their time and effort in life for free for the good of mankind... Rick #4 2006
Not the reaction you suspected I take? Yeah I agree with everyone else he's a business guy looking for profit. He's worth billions and at 78 doesn't need anymore. Blame the Govt for the loop holes, etc. If he profits I'm for it as long as we as a nation get off oil/coal.
Corporate welfare is rampant. We subsidize the trucking companies, the airlines, the car manufacturers, oil and gas, hospitals, other health care providers, etc either directly or through buying at over-market prices. Why not anything that gets us away from old-style energy to a new more sustainable energy plan? You can pay for him to get richer, or you can pay all those who will get rich trying to protect California's coasts from the effects of global warming (probably both, but maybe the former will delay the latter!).
Again with the enironmentalists getting rich off global warming? Huh? And the former won't do anything to delay global warming. Drilling won't delay it. Switching to natural gas over oil won't delay it. And putting money into Picken's pocket won't help anyone but Pickens.
I don't think it will matter. Our economy is getting close to imploding. You can call it taxes or you can call it devaluation of the dollar, it's the same thing wrapped in a different package. So a huge tax increase will only hasten the inevitable, no matter what the tax is supposed to be for. Then, you too can heat your home with cheap paper.
Actually, it will, or at least mitigate it. Oil creates more co2 than natural gas. Of course I do agree this isn't the perfect solution. But it is a step in the right direction. As such I will worry more about more damaging things. As for subsidies, I don't like any of them. But since we have subsidies for oil, coal, a little bit for solar, ballparks, new businesses opening up shop in a new locale, farmers that farm, farmers that don't farm, etc etc, it would be foolish for any businessman NOT to try to get some.
I guess I got a little too short. My concern is that although almost everyone agrees the planet is warming, all of our efforts seem to be related to slowing it down. I agree that has to be the major focus right now, we have to start thinking about how to pay the engineers and construction companies we will need to surround Florida and Manhattan with dikes, and to keep the San Joaquin Valley dry. I think slowing down global warming is job one. Can we afford to worry about who gets rich out of this? Someone will. They always do. I'm reminded of those who hate lumber companies so much they would rather see forests burn out-of-control or die by pine beetle than have those companies profit by thinning our forests to a more natural state.
You would have to make some severe reductions in GW gas emissions, et al in order to slow GW down. Such a severe reduction that switching from oil to NG wouldn't significantly slow anything down. Plus it would only continue our reliance on non-renewables. Telling people to switch from oil to NG isn't going to do much to change a mind set. It will also suck money away from the renewable infrastructure we need to implement.
Hi All, Fine if Pickens wants to make electricty with windmills. But all this other stuff is very suspicious. A traditional vehicle burning natural gas is only going to make natural gas in short supply, as it has petroleum. Newer vehicle technologies that use less energy have to come first and ALWAYS be the priority, and the fuel source secondary. The government should NEVER fund a transportation fuel switch, that does not improve energy efficiency. And Pickens plan is just that. The debate that the Pickens plan is shifting focus away from engineering more efficient cars. Its doing damage to the USA, consequently.
Don't forget, Pickens has stated that the switch to NG is something that can be done immediately. This switch is not the end goal, but a better solution that we can implement today while we continue to work on a better, more permanent solution. I agree the CA issue is 'fuzzy' and I would not vote on it based on what I have read. Luckily this is why it is up for a vote
Hi Z..., Remember, burning natural gas in a home heating furnace is six times more effiicient than in a traditional vehicle. The problem is energy as a whole, not just energy to kep oversized SUV's and pickups economical.
Follow the money. We can't trust anything Pickens says until he makes good on his $1,000,000 Swift Boat ads challenge. The gas part of Picken's plan is just to line his pockets faster. There's no shortage of markets now for natural gas. It's more sensible to use gas in stationary applications displacing heating oil and coal. We could start buying more fuel efficient cars now rather than waiting years and spending billions on new distribution and retailing infrastructure.
