I've heard Mr. T. Boone speak about this before. I think he is genuine and has offered the best plan he can work out with his expertise. It isn't perfect, but what is?

I do find it interesting how he uses the word "enemy" early on and ties in the U.S. world police/military mentality. (Made me think of Robert Newman's History of Oil.)

But I'm glad that the brief Q&A discussed the reality that Natural Gas = Fracking. I think a big problem lies in the fact that the wells being fracked now are in less and less remote areas, and populations are beginning to be affected.

>> ^MrFisk:

I've heard T. Boone Pickens speak before. He didn't mention Swift Boating.


exactly and notice no mention of WHO bought up huuuge amounts of natural gas enriched lands ten years ago.
for all his great points this man has an agenda....and it benefits him mainly.

Most fuel cell vehicles get hydrogen from natural gas = emissions (though less than gasoline vehicles).

However, another problem is that fuel cell vehicles are incredibly inefficient, in the ways of 47%. As a comparison, gasoline vehicles are about 37% efficient while electric vehicles are 99% efficient.

It's certainly no magic bullet, but it's better than the shit we have now, that's for sure.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'explosion, firecracker, manhole, man, boys, kids' to 'explosion, firecracker, manhole, man, boys, kids, methane, natural gas' - edited by calvados

Wave and solar power are where the investments should be made

Oh for... SIGH. From the Energy Information Administration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The most efficient forms of energy are Coal, Coal, Coal, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natual Gas, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. In that order.

The LEAST efficient forms of energy are Hydro, Biomass, Geo, Solar, Wind, and Wind.

Anyone notice anything interesting about the list there? Anyone? Beueller? Bueller?

"Green" energy is an absolute joke. America has enough Coal, Gas, and Oil to last well into the next century. Sure - put R&D into Solar, Wind, and Tidal - but swapping over to these forms of energy "right now" just for the sake of it is the height of idiocy. You swap energy sources when they make sense - not because of some moronic hoax (I.E. AGW).

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The other hard part here in Australia would be getting council approval. LOTS of red tape here for non-traditional dwellings.>> ^spoco2:

Great video, and is something I'd love to do myself... (although not so much that size for our family of six), but as @Boise_Lib said, nowhere in this video do they say where the land came from, nowhere in the linked article does it either.
The land is the most expensive part of owning a house (at least here in Australia it generally is)... so yeah, sure, if you had free land you could do the house build really cheaply, but on a house of say $600K, $400K of that is the land.
So would be very interesting to know about the land.
Also... the gas hot water, we have ones like that, but for mains gas (natural gas), but they run at about $1K... great things to have though, you dial the temp you want the hot water to be, and that's what you get. Great for showers (Used to have one in our last house... sigh )

Great video, and is something I'd love to do myself... (although not so much that size for our family of six), but as @Boise_Lib said, nowhere in this video do they say where the land came from, nowhere in the linked article does it either.

The land is the most expensive part of owning a house (at least here in Australia it generally is)... so yeah, sure, if you had free land you could do the house build really cheaply, but on a house of say $600K, $400K of that is the land.

So would be very interesting to know about the land.

Also... the gas hot water, we have ones like that, but for mains gas (natural gas), but they run at about $1K... great things to have though, you dial the temp you want the hot water to be, and that's what you get. Great for showers (Used to have one in our last house... *sigh*)

all of those bills are just ones the GOP themselves say are jobs bills, not anything having to actually do with jobs

And Obama's bill is just one that he says is a job bill, not anything having to do with jobs.

UCwhutididthere? From a fiscally conservative position, the GOP bills are about jobs. To a hard-left prog-lib-dyte, they aren't. To a fiscal conservative, Obama's bill is an absolute joke, but to a proglib-dyte it looks wonderful.

The truth is that both approaches are "methods" for creating jobs, but take different approaches. The GOP is using free markets, natural resource development, and small business tax breaks as a means of spurring job growth. The Democrats approach is taxes and deficit spending on temporary jobs and unions. But the past 3 years has shown us that Obama's approach is crap, and the GOP is saying "here's a viable alternative - let's try it". The Democrats in the Senate are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" Meanwhile the Democrats and President are saying, "Let's keep going what we've been doing for the past 3 years..." and the GOP in the House are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" It's a philosophical debate, and the nation as a whole prefers the GOP approach - not the President's. So he's trying to get the stupid and the suckers to buy into this moronic "do nothing" congress line. He's got nothing else because poll after poll shows both him and his plan are cratering.

the second thing you cite to is a bill basically eliminating the EPA

No - it is a bill to reduce the EPA to a less stupid level. EPA regulation of Co2 is not something the people voted for. It was rammed through by legislative fiat by Obama as a means of stifling energy production and imposing regulations on businesses which (in turn) hurt jobs. Obama's administration is rife with such bullcrap. He bans drilling in the Gulf which COSTS jobs. He blocks the Canada pipeline - which COSTS jobs. He blocks Ohio natural gas drilling - which COSTS jobs. Meanwhile he is literally dumping billions into failed projects like Fisker, Solyndra, and others which they KNOW are bad investments and are going bankrupt left and right. The GOP effort to halt that would almost immediately create over a MILLION jobs. The result will be more energy production, which will lower costs and create work. THAT is a job plan. Obama's plan kills jobs and raises energy costs.

"Without suggesting an alternative bill focused on improving the plight of struggling American's, RIP-ublicans clearly have their heads up their @%%&%"

Let's put this particular peice of stupididty to rest, shall we?

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/11/10/updated-summary-of-22-jobs

The GOP has !!22!! alternative bills focused on improving the plight of struggling Americans. It is Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and the Democrats who are lovingly french-kissing their own duodenums.

I know it is really REALLY hard for people on the left to process facts that are rooted in fundamental truth and reality - but just for once give it a shot? This whole "do-nothing Congress" line is nothing but prog-lib propoganda that leftists are desperately repeating on thier blogs and on the news in order to get the inattentive and stupid to beleive the GOP is the problem. It is something the left is REALLY pushing hard right now because they've got nothing else to go on this election cycle - what with Obama being such a dismal failure.

Case in point - Obama has by himself using what can only be described as tyrannical executive fiat - has within the past 13 days PERSONALLY killed 600,000 jobs. The Canadian oil pipeline, and natural gas drilling in Ohio. Both projects would have immediately created hundreds of thousands of jobs. If Obama wanted to goose jobs, he'd allow both projects to proceed. But because he's a leftist moron, he blocks them. And it is the REPUBLICANS who are stopping job creation by not agreeing with Obummer's idiotic tax & union slush bill? Sometimes I wonder if the prog-lib left has any clue about real life.

Also, if you're interested, natural gas is methane, methane is a greenhouse gas and I highly doubt anyone is counting all of the methane being released by these and all the other hundred of thousands of fraking wells around the world.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

LOL, you don't try to limit personal attacks. You call Obama "Obummer", "His Earness", various derivatives from the falsehood that he was born in Kenya, etc. You also label people liberals, when in truth, they're moderates, or even moderate Republican, and you suggest having liberal beliefs is somehow innately bad instead of something you disagree with only. You're not fooling anybody.

So, I'm just gonna point out once again that your claim that the science behind human contributing climate change is fake, yet you did not identify which part of the theory is false. You immediately launched into a political discussion about giving up rights, etc.

So I'll ask again, which part is it you object to? That CO2 levels are rising? That CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, aka warming on average? That CO2 increases are not due to human activity? That global temperatures are actually rising? What exactly?!

BTW, you do realize that conflicting scientific theories don't make other theories incorrect, right? There was once competing theories of the structure of our galaxy - heliocentric and geocentric. There was of course the third belief that the earth was actually flat, supported by an elephant standing on a turtle. The existence of the geocentric and other models do not disprove the heliocentric model in the slightest.

You of course have a vested interest due to your desperate clinging belief that capitalist systems and policies are the only right ones to follow, and it's virtually impossible to deal with the problem of human induced climate change with that philosophy. Therefore, you flat refuse to look objectively at the data we have, which the majority of it suggests human induced climate change. It's like a priest who wouldn't dare try to reinterpret/retranslate passages in their holy texts in light of scientific data that proves the whole world is flat supported by an elephant on a turtle theory is BS.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:
I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.
What precisely do you object to about the theory?
The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.
Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!
PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.
Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.
The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.
You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)
Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.
Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

Dude, you label your opposition socialists, communists, call Obama childish names, etc. all the dang time! That's all you do! You haven't proven a single thing with any credible scientific data. Not one thing. There are some basic facts that illustrate global warming:

I call 'em as I see 'em but try to limit personal attacks (I hope). Those with opposing viewpoints to mine are usually variants of communists, socialists, anarcho-libertarians and even liberals, aka Socialist-Lite.

What precisely do you object to about the theory?

The worldwide power grab in the name of "safety". It's odd how we pick our battles, don't we? The same guy who hates the Patriot Act as limiting his freedom may simply hand it over when told it will extend the life of a dolphin. Or vice versa.

Do you object to CO2 being deemed a greenhouse gas? That CO2 levels are in fact rising? That humans are the main culprit to CO2 levels rising? That temperatures globally are rising? What?!

PROOF PROOF PROOF. For every theory there is another opposing it, and a third plausible theory that has nothing to do with the original argument.

Remember, credibility is the burden of those trying to change society to suit their vision.

And btw, it's a silly argument that we don't know for sure because it's a scientific theory. If the best evidence suggests global destruction caused by this phenomena, then it would be wise to move as quickly as possible to take action to stop it. It's like sitting on railroad tracks, hearing a train horn in the distance, feeling rumblings on the ground, but deciding you're not gonna move until it's too late. After all, the train could stop well short. It could be someone making It could be someone making train noises, with small earthquakes going at the same time.

The best evidence doesn't point to a looming crisis. TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Do you know where you hear that the most? Commercials. Artificial countdowns. HURRY! THIS SALE ENDS SATURDAY! It's a sales tactic to get people off their butts and ACT, without thinking.

You guys can just write me off as another one who refuses to see THE TRUTH(tm)

Provided I don't get hit by a natural-gas-powered bus, I'll be here, you'll be here and the earth will be here and doing fine 50 years from now.

Climate change alarmist alarmed they’re wrong

The real issue is that no matter how much chaff guys like Stewart fill the discussion with - the cost of doing business in the US is higher than almost anywhere else. This high cost causes businesses to go to places where they can get a higher benefit to cost. The company I work for would love to do more business locally, but getting the exact same stuff from a US location costs millions more than getting the stuff from China. So we have a plant in China because it is bucoup cheaper.

The fact that GE (and others) get their taxes down to 0% (or -60% whatever) is not a problem indemic to corporations. Companies do nothing more than attempt to get the lowest operating cost they can got, which results in the highest profits. There's nothing wrong with that. A company that manages to get a -60% tax rate is doing nothing but playing the game well with the board that we're all on.

The real problem is GOVERNMENT - particularly the Federal government. The robber barons of America's past abused power in a way far more like what Stewart is whining about here. They ran roughshod over people, and there were no laws to stop them. A good thing happened, and the people forced government to pass laws that allowed government to regulate such abuses. It was a good thing.

But as with all human endeavors, a the pendulum once it starts swinging in a direction tends to keep going way past the point where it was prudent or useful. Government now has so much power that it is in a position where it is literally PICKING winners and losers in the marketplace.

It is no accident that GE is getting such sweetheart deals. They donated to the right people, and support the 'right' political things (green energy, Obama, etc...) so they have been rewarded by their political allies. It is modern-day corporate patronage in full nakedness. GM is another example. They're playing money out to the right people, and so they get billions in government money despite the fact that not a single citizen VOTED for them to get so much as a red penny.

Companies aren't stupid. They know all too well that in today's environment a profitable year, a good quarterly report, or the ability to expand operations is more dependant on the whims of politicians than any other concern. Obama yesterday gave the corn growers of the US about the biggest gift they've ever had, while at the same time stomping on oil, coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuel companies. That wasn't a COMPANY issue. That is GOVERNMENT entering the mix and picking and choosing who succeeds and who fails.

The only way this kind of outragousness is ever going to end is if you weaken government's power to write tax code. What good does fixing the tax code do when the same government can change it tomorrow to make it so a favored political donor doesn't have to follow it?

Problem is not companies and big profits. Problem is GOVERNMENT. As with so many other problems, the solution is severely weaken government power.

efficiency in heating water is no more or less efficient then current natural gas and nuclear tech

Solar is inefficient in the sense that it costs more money to produce per watt of energy. It takes 25 years for a solar facility to break even. That's 25 years of citizens paying bigger power bills to subsidize a questionable technology.

you would have seen they has solved the day night cycle problem by storing the heat

Molten salt heat storage has existed at least since the early 1980s. I remember watching an episode of NOVA as a kid talking about this. The Spain plant is the first one in the world to use salt thermal storage tanks to run the plant for between 6 to 8 hours without sunlight.

Even in ideal locations, sunlight is interrupted by weather, cloud cover, and normal day/night cycles. These all reduce power generation capacity. Heat storage is not enough to make up the gap unless you live in close proximity to a few very specific geographic locations. Solar plant in "non ideal" locations require a fossil fuel backup for 75% of their total capacity. Essentially, the solar plant you see is just a coal-fired plant that burns 25% less coal.

Of course that fact that there are no fuel cost or waste by products mean that solar towers and the like will have no harmful impacts on the future like every other method of providing electricity out there.

Well, I'd debate your language a bit on this. There are fuel costs in the sense that you have to buy solar cells, and so forth. They require rare earth metals and other materials. There is waste also because you have to replace those things every few years. Modern nuclear plants are just fine, as are most modern US coal plants (if they would just let them be built).