Pickens, Home Depot Beat Wind-Turbine Makers in Energy Measure

T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire energy hedge-fund manager, and Home Depot Inc., the largest U.S. home-improvement retailer, are winners in energy legislation that fails to help solar-panel and wind-turbine makers.

The measure proposed yesterday by Senate Democrats would give Pickens victory in his lobbying campaign for more use of natural gas, providing $3.8 billion in rebates for cars and trucks powered by the fuel. Home Depot would benefit from provisions to channel $5 billion in rebates to homeowners who upgrade to more efficient appliances or add insulation that reduces energy use.

. . .

The U.S. is “awash” in natural gas, thanks to new drilling techniques that make gas locked in shale formations cheaper to recover, Pickens told the House Ways and Means Committee on April 14.

“We are going to look like fools if we don’t use natural gas for transportation,” Pickens told the panel. “The only way we can solve the OPEC oil threat is by replacing their expensive, dirty fuel with cleaner, cheaper American natural gas.”

In October 2009, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who drafted the Senate oil-spill response bill, called Pickens “a good friend and a real visionary.”



The Senate bill would offer rebates to people who buy gas- powered cars or trucks or convert conventional vehicles to gas. It also would give grants of as much as $50,000 to companies that put natural gas refueling stations into service between 2011 and 2015.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/pickens-home-depot-beat-wind-turbine-makers-in-u-s-energy-legislation.html

Absent from the measure were limits on carbon dioxide or requirements that utilities add solar and wind power to their portfolios.

Everything we shouldn't be doing is being pushed in the energy bill.

not for transportation. This is dumb.

And shale fracking also has the added benefit of not being subject to any environmental laws. The Clean air and water act is completely bypassed. Right now shale fracking dumps tons and tons of toxins directly into the ground water. And they don't even have to report how much and what toxins they dump.

This energy bill had an added clause in it to require the reporting of these toxins, but GOPers are trying to stop that clause.

How sad is that? A wimpy little clause not to stop all the poisoning, just a clause to tell us what poisons they are dumping.

that the GOP is opposing it

of course, the GOP is often actually the most vociferous on bills closest to its masters' goals

Fracking is a problem and there needs to be stricter guidelines around it. But it's nothing compared to the impacts of coal. Much worse is happening on a much wider scale. Fracking is just the new thing people are hearing about.

that conclusion anyway.

I don't agree

mountaintop removal coal mining.
open pit strip mining in the west.
deaths from mining accidents every year.
tens of thousands of deaths connected to coal power plant pollution every year.
add the fact that coal produces at least twice the CO2 pollution.

How many thousands have died from natural gas this year?

Yes, fracking is a problem. It needs stricter regulation, which is in the process of happening. I know a lot more about these issues than what I watched in a movie. The comparison isn't event close. The impacts of coal are far worse and far more widespread.

Neither is beneficial. Both are very very bad. Replacing one with the other should not even cross our thought path.

Some great work has been done with solar, wind and tidal. If it weren't for all the deliberate misinformation out there on how ineffective these alternatives are, the discussion here should automatically be "WTF, shale fracking instead of solar? Are they out of their minds?"

Solar and wind are not. We have enough unused natural gas capacity from existing plants to replace and shut down most of the coal plants in the US. We'd cut our CO2 emissions at least in half in less than a year, instead of waiting 5 or more years while we build new solar and wind generation. Given the urgency of climate change, it's a worthwhile alternative.

Renwables are the better choice. Natural gas only makes sense as a transition fuel if it means getting rid of coal (or used in combination with wind). Of course building renewables should be our top priority. What I've read about Reid's bill is that it doesn't do much to support wind and solar. Setting up natural gas as a permanent transportation alternative, as Reid's bill does, is ridiculous. We already know the realistic solution is electric cars powered from wind/solar.

The current infrastructure is crumbling. It needs to be replaced. And if used for cars, it needs to be expanded. This energy bill is all about providing money for this.

So again. The discussion should be,

do we want to spend money for solar, wind or tidal

or

do we want to spend money for natural gas


That is the question.

So the discussion should be whether we're going to do something about coal and how fast are we going to do it.

There are multiple strategies that should be pursued simultaneously.

I support you in that. It is dreadful. The entire process starting with the mining, transporting, burning and ending with the ash pits is a dirty awful business.

I just don't understand why you are arguing to replace coal with natural gas.

Coal use should go away and natural gas should go away. All government money should be put into solar, wind and tidal. If this were done and pushed, these alternatives could easily and very very quickly replace the use of fossil fuels.

Natural gas is the only available alternative that could be used to replace most coal plants this year. Almost immediately. The plant capacity already exists online but is underused. It's the fastest way to achieve significant reductions in CO2 while we spend the next few years building renewable sources.

Except for anything that would actually help?