Comments on: What’s Your Plan?

By: Bob Licoski

Bob Licoski — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:04:49 +0000

Mr. Pickens for the last six years I have been working on a way, to do what you are trying to do. FREE this nation of our dependence of oil. I have found a way, not only for our country, but the world over. The source of power is the largest force known to man. The only proof I have of doing this is Newton’s law, the same law that you wish to use. I do not have this device, nor the financial means of producing it . However the source of power is real, and it never stops. Mr. Pickens your plan is a good one, however it has limitations and the source of power is not consistent, and the fact is you still need other sources of fuel to supplement your system, and these fuels produce emitions.The name of my device is called \”THE PAGONBINE\”, and it has no emitions, you cant see it, nor can you hear it. Mr. Pickens I am offering a WORLD with no admissions of any kind.

By: Bob Licoski

Bob Licoski — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:45:39 +0000

By: Larry M. Aden

Larry M. Aden — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 14:07:19 +0000

Local non-partisan action is the best way for us to progress in this struggle!
Natural Gas (NG) serves best in large urban areas where access is universal, driving distances are shorter, and its cleaner burning yields maximum benefit.
If we concentrate on big cities first, we can thus make the greatest improvement for the greatest number in the shortest time.
In this political duopoly, our two major parties have always been more of a hindrance than a help to getting the People\’s business done.
If we look back at our Founding Fathers for guidance, we see that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were adamantly opposed to organized political parties, and the word \’party\’ does not occur once in our beloved Constitution!
If we want to progress on energy, or anything of import, we must ban all parties from ballot access, so all ideas have equal access, and the voter must vote for the candidate, not the party.
I posted the below on other blogs to help us better understand the energy problems we all face:

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG, mostly CH4) is much cheaper and slightly cleaner than Liquid Propane Gas (LPG, or C3H8), kits for conversion of autos to CNG, LPG, Butane (LBG, or C4H10), or Hydrogen (H2) are virtually identical except for orifice size, but only LPG kits are widely available, and cheap enough to warrant converting.
No kits, that I know of, are designed to change automatically from one fuel to another on the go, as they well should be.
NG will not remain cheap, if substantial conversion of our transportation sector to CNG occurs without equal increases in production of NG its component, methane (CH4), from biogas, or other gases from every possible source.
We also unsustainably consume increasingly huge amounts of NG making Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3) and other industrial gases that could be more cheaply and sustainably made by electrolysis of water (H2O) and cryogenic distillation of air!
President Bush has been absolutely right in pushing for H2 in every budget he has proposed for the last several years, but nobody listens to him, because he is just \”an oil man\”.
Hydrogen (H2) is the answer and is not expensive to make if we use wind energy and other cheap off-peak electrical power during the nighttime to produce it by electrolysis from water.
This relatively-efficient, low-tech solution is over 100 years old, infinitely renewable, totally carbon neutral and more profitable than reforming CH4 from NG, as two pure industrial gases are produced - Hydrogen and Oxygen (O2)!
H2 can also be metered into the mix in our buried low-pressure NG pipelines at any point where it is produced, eliminating the problems in H2 distribution and the need for huge electrical transmission lines from our wind farms.

Below is an in-depth Letter to the Editor in a series that I had published:

COMMON SENSE ON ENERGY, NOW!!!, Part II
I wanted to discuss how we should make use of wasted local energy resources like that biogas flame at the sewage plant and the algae from Storm Lake for bio-fuels, but the nitwits are attacking on other fronts, so I must rush to the ramparts.
This won’t be short, so if you would rather not learn anything today, or you don’t want your present world view to be confused by the facts, stop reading, now!
I am often fond of saying that God created every person with a special talent and their own little piece of the truth. The real trick is in finding each persons talent to employ them to their fullest, and to recognize their little piece of the truth, so that we can put it in its proper place in the jigsaw puzzle of life to recreate that picture of eternal bliss in the Garden of Eden. Sadly, not every living being is willing to lend their talent and their knowledge to this quest. For this reason, we all continue to suffer.
Texas oil man, T. Boone Pickens, whose talent seems to be making money for himself, made over $1Billion speculating in oil and gas in 2005, again in 2006, $1.5B in 2007, was earlier estimated to be worth $3 Billion, but has since been instrumental in pushing crude oil beyond reason with his very public pronouncements that “oil is going to $150”.
It is now hovering around $145 as he quietly sells the barrels he bought at $50, after all, he’s not greedy; he doesn’t have to have every penny of that $150!
Whenever you hear a speculator say one thing, you should run the other direction!
Just like when George Soros caused the devaluation of the US Dollar, when he announced to the world that he was getting out of Dollars and buying Euros. That should have been interpreted by all of us that Soros had already sold all of his Dollars and bought all the Euros he could buy. He went public, because he wanted everyone else to do the same, so he could get out of Euros near their high and buy Dollars cheap.
Because Soros is rich, every fool listens to him. All the lemmings bit on this one, and rushed to dump their Dollars, stressing our economy and raising the price of food, fuel and everything we buy in the process. George only wants money and a Dem elected President, and he doesn’t care who he has to hurt to get it!
Paraphrasing Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, “If you mix a big lie in with a little truth, and tell it often enough, you can convince everyone it is the truth.”
That is what T. Boone is doing with his very expensive TV ad campaign touting PickensPlan.com to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Everything he has to say about the harm buying foreign oil is doing to our economy is absolutely true. That we should use more of our own CNG (compressed natural gas) for our autos is also true, and absolutely achievable with technology we have had for decades. That we should make more use of wind and solar energy, of course, but, that we can take Natural Gas (NG) away from electrical generation and replace that with wind and solar power shows he is either extremely ignorant of the fundamental facts about electricity, or he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes for his own profit!
Call me cynical, but I am betting on the latter, as recently, Pickens has heavily invested the profits of his oil speculation into both wind and natural gas!
He has also invested heavily in water rights, what should that tell us about what ‘shortage’ might develop next?
I am all for anyone making money, just do it honestly, without hurting your fellow man in the process, always giving your trading partners equal fair market value.
To see why Pickens’ Plan is not perfectly honest and achievable, we need to understand our energy consuming habits and needs.
Electrical power providers categorize our energy demand as 3 types of “load” – base, intermediate, and peak.
“Base load” is the minimum level of electrical power consumption at any one moment throughout any hour of every day of the year. This is constant demand and requires constant generating capacity, as alternating current cannot be stored, it must be used at the moment it is generated. They use hydroelectric, nuclear, and coal-fired steam turbine generating plants to provide this power, as these are cheap, constant and dependable, but cannot be started and stopped quickly to meet new load.
Geothermal, ocean thermal, offshore wind, wave, and ocean current energy could also be used for this load, and these represent the only safe and inexhaustible supply of renewable energy available to us to address ‘base load’. Why does no one even mention them in this debate on what we should do about energy? Why should we build nuclear plants when we haven’t even sunk one turbine in the Gulf Stream, yet?
“Intermediate load” is the demand that increases from 6AM, when the world starts to stir, to 9PM, when it starts to wind down, getting ready for bed. This happens like clock work every day, regardless of the weather, it can be planned for, so they fire the boilers in those coal-fired plants, a little harder, a little ahead of time, to bring more steam turbine generators on-line, or open another gate on a hydroelectric dam, when you and I want to shower and go to work.
“Peak load” is different every day of every season, depending heavily upon the weather and variable human activity. It is normally between 12 Noon and 4PM, with space heating and air conditioning being the greatest variable in demand. This demand changes rapidly and requires instantaneous response in generating capacity from hot gas turbines, which burn NG. There is no alternative to this gas, except other more expensive gases. If we take this NG from electric companies, we will be constantly plagued with brownouts and blackouts, or see massive increases in the price of our power and fuel, or both.
Wind cannot replace this power, in fact, our need for NG in electrical generation will actually increase with increased dependence on the fickle wind, as it almost never comes when we really need it. Most of the best wind comes at night, when we do not need it at all. The power companies really hate to be forced to buy wind power for 3.5cts/Kwh while shutting down coal-fired generation that costs them 1ct/Kwh. Who could blame them? Likewise, where the best wind comes, from West Texas to North Dakota, we do not have the necessary transmission lines, because there are few people living there to serve this power to.
High tension interstate transmission lines are very expensive, and very intrusive! Nobody wants these monstrosities built in their back yard!
What we could, and should, do is hook every alternative energy source we can find to a local load that matches it.
Solar photoelectric energy is a good match for air conditioning, refrigeration, and water pumping. Demand for these always increases when the sun shines, perfect match! It is expensive, inefficient, and nearly useless for anything else. Solar heating is little better, but should be passively designed into every new building.
Wind is a great match for space heating, water pumping, battery charging and other automated industrial processes that can be run when the wind blows, and shut off when it doesn’t, such as cryogenic distillation of air, hydrogen electrolysis, anhydrous ammonia (NH3) production, and other industrial gas production from these processes.
Huge quantities of our precious NG are spent senselessly in manufacturing NH3 for fertilizer, when it has long been cheaper to return to the original carbon-neutral, and infinitely renewable process of making it from water and air.
We must rewrite the REA charter to cover all forms of rural energy distribution, empower local REC’s to fund, sell and maintain distributed generation systems for their members, and to empower those members to sell all forms of energy directly back.
Then, we must erect wind and water current turbines everywhere we can possibly put them, thousands of big ones, and millions of smaller ones between them, that we manufacture here (not expensive imports). Each can be wired into our present electrical grid without building new transmission lines. Then, we must hook each to a water electrolyzer, and a booster pump, to store the off-peak energy as Hydrogen gas (H2), putting this, along with methane (CH4) from our every hog house, poultry house, cattle feedlot, and sewage plant, into the local low-pressure NG pipelines that serve our houses, farms and industries. Underground low-pressure NG pipelines are cheap and innocuous.
NG, mostly CH4, the very same biogas produced by every marsh, cow stomach, and manure pit, is compatible with both gasoline and diesel engines, and is perfectly interchangeable with propane, butane, and Hydrogen in low pressure gas systems (<300psi). These gases are extremely clean burning and can be used interchangeably in any gasoline motor with a truly flex-fuel system having an adjustable orifice.
H2 and CH4 are perfectly compatible, clean, safe and infinitely renewable; they also store well and liquefy under comparable conditions, but only at very high pressures (5400psi), or very low temperatures (-253C). CNG is normally packed at 3000psi for auto fuel, which is too high to be compatible with other gases, and too low to liquefy.
So, we should standardize compressed gas auto fuel storage pressure with liquid propane gas (LPG) at 300psi, then, use LPG, ethanol, or gasoline, only for long trips, and NG for our every day commutes.
With a small pump, we could all fill our cars and tractors at home from our own NG/H2 pipeline meter for about a Dollar per gallon gasoline equivalent!
When Pickens wants us to do that, I’ll support him, 100%!

By: James Garden Jr.

James Garden Jr. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:40:40 +0000

September 5, 2008
Mr. T. Boone Pickens
In Re: Your energy plan
Sir: In your television ads, you note that as yet the technology has not been developed for portable alternative fuels for motor vehicles. You are aware, of course, that our biggest source of hydrogen is water, and that electrolysis is one of the most common ways of splitting water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Electrolysis takes electrical energy. There is a better and less energy-intensive way to dissociate (split) the water molecule—that is by using photocatalysts. In the presence of natural or man-made light, photocatalysts will easily split the water molecule. Fortunately, there are scientists researching for efficient ways to dissociate water.
Water, of course, is the only portable non-carbon source of renewable fuel available in the huge quantities needed to supplant gasoline. Water requires no investment in exploration, drilling, refining, mining, transportation, service stations, or disposal of nuclear waste. Unlike carbon-based fuels, water is recyclable.
Described below are the main parts of a portable water dissociation system that would use photocatalysts.
The hydrogen and oxygen yield from this water dissociation system can be used in internal combustion engines that are modified to burn hydrogen; or the gases can be used in vehicles equipped with fuel cells; or the gases can be burned to heat boilers to create steam to drive turbines connected to electric generators.
Titanium dioxide is a cheap and plentiful photocatalyst. Dr. Chris Sorrell at the University of New South Wales is working on water dissociation systems using titanium dioxide. (c.sorrell@unsw.edu.au) Australia has 40% of the world’s supply of titanium dioxide.
In February, 2007, Dr. Manoranjan Misra of the University of Nevada/Reno, (misra@unr.edu) announced that he had developed carbon nanotubes that dissociate water in the presence of light. He reported that: “The new power source is extremely cost-effective…”
In July, 2008, Dr. Daniel Nocera of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (nocera@MIT.EDU) and Dr. Bjorn Winther-Jensen of Monash University in Australia (bjorn.wintherjensen@eng.monash.edu.au) reported in the journal Science that they had developed a cost-effective solution to replace platinum electrodes. Dr. Nocera and staff developed an electrode coated with cobalt and phosphate for use in electrolysis, taking the place of platinum electrodes. Dr. Winther-Jensen developed polymer electrodes for fuel cells, again replacing platinum electrodes, which metal accounts for much of the cost of fuel cells.
Expensive tris bipyridine ruthenium1 (TBR), reacting in combination with dioctadecyl or dihydrochlolesteryl esters, also dissociates water in the presence of light.
The main part of this system consists of a water dissociation chamber connected to a light chamber by optical fibers. The light chamber receives sunlight from a vehicle’s top surfaces. Sunlight is supplemented by a powerful electric light for both overcast daylight and night driving. The dissociation chamber contains photocatalysts and a gas separation system.
The light chamber contains a golf-ball-size light bulb, developed by Fusion Lighting of Rockville, Maryland under a U.S. D.O.E. grant. It emits 450,000 lumens when excited by microwaves. A 100-watt incandescent light bulb output is 1,690 lumens. The Fusion light bulb contains argon gas and a small amount of sulfur. The presence of microwaves makes it necessary to shield the hydrogen and oxygen in the dissociation chamber from the light chamber.
Microwaves are supplied by micro-power impulse radar (MIR), a short-range system small enough to be put on a $10 computer chip, using very little electricity. MIR was developed at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by Tom McEwan, and is available for licensing.
Heat from the light bulb, as well as heat from any fuel cell, internal combustion engine, or steam engine in the system, may be converted to electricity and stored in batteries. Heat may be conducted by insulated heat pipes to a chamber equipped with thermoacoustic electric generators developed at the U.S. Los Alamos Lab. The chamber may also be equipped with photovoltaic cells that use infrared and visible light to make electricity, such as the 35% efficient solar cells developed by JX Crystals Inc. of Issaquah, Washington, U.S.A.
The more light and area of catalyst to which water is exposed, the greater the quantity of water that can be dissociated within a given time period. This is the key to the whole system. When daylight is directed by optical fibers to power a large area of catalyst, hydrogen and oxygen are produced in quantities sufficient to meet the demands of the fuel cell, internal combustion engine, or steam engine. Since motor vehicles spend much time parked outdoors, JX solar cells continually charge batteries for night driving, taking advantage of free solar light and infrared energy.
A honeycombed and well-lighted catalyst can expose water to an acre of area within a volume of a couple of cubic feet. One cubic foot of charcoal, for example, has a surface area of 12.4 square miles. A stable foam such as that developed by Dr. Eric Beckman at the University of Pittsburgh, U.S.A., may be used to contain and support the titanium dioxide catalyst. Solid gas-permeable membranes in the dissociation chamber are used in a gas-separation system.
The photocatalyst can be fused or otherwise attached to the surface of a rigid foam support. Water circulated throughout such foams is simultaneously exposed to the photocatalyst and light. The light is natural and man-made combined, and is carried throughout the foam structure by clear glass or plastic fibers. A rigid foam or a woven fabric providing water passages can be made entirely of joined pairs of glass or plastic fibers, of which half of the pair conducts light, and half are coated with the chosen photocatalyst. The man-made light depends on car batteries being recharged by regenerative braking, household plug-in battery chargers, or by solar cells responding to natural daylight—all of which means are external sources of energy.
An alternate method of getting the maximum exposure if titanium dioxide is used as the photocatalyst is to keep it continually in a semi-colloidal suspension in water in a baffled tank that is equipped with thousands of strands of glass fiber, through which fibers intense light is conducted from the light source.
A gas separation system is essential for separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. Both gases are collected and are fed into storage tanks, or directly into fuel cells if a motor vehicle is equipped with fuel cells. Since the byproduct of a fuel cell is water, it can be filtered if necessary, and returned to the water dissociation tank. A water replenishment tank is provided, filled with distilled water, since 100% recovery of water from the dissociation process is not practical.
Catalysts can become contaminated. Since titanium dioxide is inexpensive—it’s the stuff that makes paint and toothpaste white—provision is made for changing the catalyst and its support structure, much like changing a vehicle’s oil filter. Contaminated catalysts can be recycled and used again.
Electric power for night driving comes from three high-capacity car batteries kept charged by regenerative braking; by excess electricity developed by fuel cells, and by utilization of waste heat and solar energy by the JX solar cells. Batteries sometimes require recharging during periods of prolonged absence of sunlight caused by clouds, or caused by the parking of vehicles in closed garages during daylight hours. The batteries, of course, supply power for the MIR radar, exciting the argon gas and sulfur in the light bulb to produce its intense light.
A standby system is recommended to operate the dissociation cycle on a minimum demand basis when vehicles are not in use, using solar power during daylight hours, and battery power at night. Also, the standby system would eliminate the warm-up time required by current fuel cells, and, in cold weather, keep the system water from freezing.
Honda stated a few years ago that their FCX-V3 concept car had a range of 270 miles, using 8.8 pounds of compressed hydrogen. That is 30.7 miles per pound of hydrogen. Adjust that down to 30 miles per pound of hydrogen. Eight pounds of oxygen will combine with one pound of hydrogen to make nine pounds of water. Nine pounds of water, containing that one pound of hydrogen, equals 137.83 liquid ounces (adjust that figure up to 138 liquid ounces), or slightly more than a U.S gallon which contains 128 liquid ounces and weighs 8.36 pounds. At 30 miles per pound of hydrogen, each mile traveled would consume 1/30th of the pound of hydrogen contained in those 138 liquid ounces of water, or 4.6 liquid ounces per mile—slightly more than half an 8-ounce glass of water. This proposed water dissociation system can catalytically dissociate 4.6 ounces of water per mile of travel, using either titanium dioxide or Dr. Misra’s nanotubes as a photocatalyst.
One wonders what Honda’s rationale is for carrying compressed hydrogen at pressures of 5,000 to 10,000 pounds per square inch when sufficient hydrogen can be generated onboard a motor vehicle. Onboard hydrogen generation also would eliminate the necessity of building a network of hydrogen filling stations throughout a country.
Large, stationary versions of the portable system can be built to provide on-site generation of electricity for individual businesses and homes, thus eliminating the need for large electric generating plants and the millions of miles of transmission wires. Those who can generate their own power will say goodbye forever to high fuel prices and electric power outages caused by grid overloads, downed power lines, or sabotage.
It may be advantageous to build the large dissociation systems first, then, using the experience gained, design the smaller portable dissociation systems for motor vehicles.
Sincerely,
James

1. Professor David G. Whitten et al, Department of Chemistry, U. of North Carolina.
[G. Sprintschnik, H. Sprintschnik, P. Kirsch, and D. Whitten, Journal of the American Chemistry Society, 1976, 98, 2337-2338]

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:13:51 +0000

Has anyone thought of what the impact of transferring natural gas supplies from home heating to automobiles? They are all ready predicting a increase in the cost to heat homes by gas this winter. Besides the effect on heating costs, the plan has one blaring error, it uses current rates to calculate the cost of running cars on natural gas. To make a dent in the use of gasoline to power cars will create a massive spike in demand for natural gas and that means the costs will massively spike also. This would take a massive investment in exploration, extraction and distribution infrastructure in the natural gas industry to keep the cost affordable and mitigate the impact on heating costs. Why would you want to spend this investment on a \’bridge\’? Seems to me we don\’t need the natural gas bridge, spend the money on the electric grid and go straight to electric cars. On a secondary point, what is the impact on the environment of all the natural gas cars manufactured for the \’bridge\’ that just go straight to the junk yard. To make an impact on the use of gasoline you are talking about 100\’s of millions of cars to be manufactured. What is the energy impact of manufacturing all these cars and then the environmental impact of sending them to the junk yard. To make this feasible and have an impact you need decades of natural gas cars which just pushes back the transition to electric cars.

By: John

John — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:10:01 +0000

Has anyone thought of what the impact of transfering natural gas supplies from home heating to automobiles? They are all ready predicting a 20% increase in the cost to heat homes by gas this winter. Besides the effect on heating costs, the plan has one blaring error, it uses current rates to calculate the cost of running cars on natural gas. If you truly want to make a dent in the use of gasoline to power cars this will create a massive spike in demand for natural gas and that means the costs will massivly spike also. This would take a massive investment in exploration, extraction and distribution infrastruction in the natural gas industry to keep the cost affordable and mitigate the impact on heating costs. Why would you want to spend this investment on a \’bridge\’? Seems to me we don\’t need the natural gas bridge, spend the money on the electric grid and go straight to electric cars. On a secondary point, what is the impact on the evironment of all the natural gas cars manufactured for the \’bridge\’ that just go straight to the junk yard. To make an impact on the use of gasoline you are talking about 100s of millions of cars to be manufactured. What is the energy impact of manufacturing all these cars and then the environmental impact of sending them to the junk yard. To make this feasable and have an impact you need decades of natural gas cars which just pushes back the transition to electric cars.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:36:56 +0000

Great Plan . My plan is to promote the Pickens Plan were ever my presence is on the internet.
I have a weekly talk radio show dedicated solely ot he plan and Alternative energy.

http://www.booneradio.com

Each and everyone of my blogs talks about the Pickens Plan.

http://www.pickensplan.today.com

Is one I just created to meet a larger audience. If you trust in the plan as I do go out Push the plan spread the word and create blogs dedicated to the Plan. I need a dedicated co-host
Talk to you all on the radio.

Monday 9-8-08 1 Pm is the next live show. All shows can be archived

http://www.booneradio.com

So WHAT\”S YOUR PLAN
http://www.googleradioblogs.com

By: Chris Cremean

Chris Cremean — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:26:37 +0000

Present and past Administrations and Congresses have established our security on defending the foreign oil fields that we have become so depend upon. They need to understand and support a security policy that defends us at home. The PickensPlan will go a long way to creating a truely secure policy for our country.

By: Ted Mittelstaedt

Ted Mittelstaedt — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 08:59:31 +0000

In looking at the Pickens Plan I think there are a couple of problems with it. First, I am pretty sure the amount of usable wind energy in the US is far larger than what the Plan says. In other words the Pickens Plan greatly underestimates the amount of available wind energy. The Plan focuses on wind generation in the Great Plains and that is all well and good but there are many other sites that could also have wind generators put online. Second, the use of Natural Gas to fuel vehicles. This is known as CNG, Compressed Natural Gas. For a large number of passenger vehicles in the US, use of CNG is not worthwhile. For starters a CNG car cannot use braking energy. But more importantly, a car engine is a rather inefficient place to burn natural gas. CNG would be justified for vehicles that require a large range. But a much better way to do it would be to dispense with natural gas fueled vehicles and just use electric cars.

By: Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD

Dr. Hans J. Kugler, PhD — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:54:54 +0000

Most - - MOST - - important is the fact that the PICKENS plan is not only 100% doable, but it will reduce the CO2 burden on the environment by 2.o Billion pounds of CO2 per day.
See the calculations at
http://www.ElToroEXPOSED.com.

By: T.J.

T.J. — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:45:57 +0000

Excellent response to a ridiculous opinion piece. It\’s too bad responses always have to be with \”kiddie-gloves\” because it would be more refreshing to just keep it simple. Something like:

Mr. Jenkins:

Opinions are like a**sholes: Everyone has one and they all stink. Thank you for sharing yours with the rest of us. Now, please allow me to retort.

Keep stalling the development of alternative fuels with your pessimistic attitude. That sounds like a great plan–to move our country closer to demise.

Stay on the attack, folks. Any truly revolutionary plan (like this one) is worth fighting for!

By: David R. Whetsell

David R. Whetsell — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:29:28 +0000

According to the USDA plant guide, “The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) was introduced into the United States from China in 1776 by Ben Franklin (Randall

By: David R. Whetsell

David R. Whetsell — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:25:18 +0000

My name is David Whetsell and I love this country. We are slowly going broke as we continue to pour out our hard earned dollars into foreign countries. Our politicians never seem to take any assertive action. That is why I am sending this message out.
I don’t profess to be an expert and I am only reporting from articles I have read on the internet and talking with friends. I have not spoken with the researchers who were responsible for the articles and I hope I have not done anything of an impropriety by sending this out. Please send a message that this is one way to create our own oil within the United States. I hope a lot of people with power and assets will take heed to this article and do something. Also, I hope this gets a lot of supporters like me and we all can sway our politicians and farmers to act.

Sincerely,David Whetsell, American, 803-957-8694,dawhetsell@windstream.net

According to the USDA plant guide, “The Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) was introduced into the United States from China in 1776 by Ben Franklin (Randall

By: John Laycock

John Laycock — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 11:34:29 +0000

As the campaign season slips into gear, I expect we\’ll hear a lot about an \”all of the above\” energy plan. My Representative in Congress mentioned this in a recent letter responding to my request that he support the PickensPlan. This would be a single bill dealing with all aspects of our energy problem, from oil drilling to CAFE standards, and from wind to nuclear. This \”omnibus\” approach strikes me as a prescription for more of the same. Wind and NGVs will be held hostage pending an agreement on nuclear power plants, etc.

The more sensible approach is to divide the energy problem into its component parts and achieve progress on these individual issues as quickly as possible. Wind, solar and NGVs seem the best place to start. Not that progress will be easy. To make Mr. Pickens proposal a reality, Congress will have to deal with The Grid which, at the moment, isn\’t up to the task of carrying huge loads of new wind-generated power to market. Congress has been avoiding this problem for decades. See the article in the Aug. 27 New York Times at: nytimes.com/energychallenge

Why do our Congressfolk choose inaction over progress? It\’s because of the \”permanent campaign\” — the fact that as soon as one presidential campaign ends, the next begins, and governing takes a back seat to scoring points on your enemy. Both candidates promise an end to \”business as usual,\” but I wonder if either is truly committed to getting rid of the \”permanent campaign\” and focusing instead on the people\’s business, with energy at the top of the punch list. Time will tell. However, I think that Mr. Pickens, with his willingness to invest in highly effective advertising, can keep the pressure on even after the election.

By: mary lancster

mary lancster — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:54:36 +0000

For many years now I have wonderd why no one was running with idea of getting us of oil even as a teenager I couldn\’t understand this. As a woman the one thing I have learned is. The only way to go is to be independent. So much of our lives depend on inports, why? I the foriegn oil is shut off were done for. Just like the chips in our fighter planes come from other countrys. If we have a disagreement whith these countrys we rely so heavily on and they shut us off how do we protect ourselves. People think nothing can happen to us becouse we are America, I bet the Romans thought the same thing. If you are an independent nation then when opions clash you don\’t crash. And as I say it doesn\’t matter if that dimond only cost a dime if you can\’t work then you can\’t by it. Coming from a state where most every one drives at least 30 to 60 miles one way. What happens when you can no longer afford to make that drive? Perhaps I\’m just to simple minded but I have never been able to understand why the oil companys are not rushing to come up with a plan instead of hanging on to the one that doesn\’t work. they maybe making record profits today but tommarrow they will be out of buisness. Whom ever comes up with the next workable plan will be the richer person. As an american I find it embarising that imedeate greed takes presedence over our childrens future.