Arab Oil Money Oil Saudi Arabia US politics

US Tilting Towards Windmills……Not, FLEX FUEL is a Much Better Option……!

The TT doesn’t blame the US for not doing so, for it’s not a panacea for replacing fossil fuels, not even close. Ben Johnson at FrontPage Mag writes about Texas legend, T.Boone Pickens, and his call to advance the use of natural gas and wind power to help reduce US dependency on foreign oil.
Johnson finds Pickens’ claims to be less than convincing, so does the Tundra Tabloids (now under review) which views another alternative to be far more effective in defeating the Saudi/Opec monopoly on the world’s main source for energy…oil.

Ben Johnson …Pickens advances the use of natural gas and wind power. Pickens claims 22 percent of current power could be replaced by wind-generated power. His proposal would transform the American Midwest, the breadbasket of the world, requiring windmills to be erected from Galveston to Fargo at a cost of at least $1.2 trillion (Boone’s estimate). He also wants to see automobiles fitted with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) tanks, which he claims would cut our use of gasoline by $300 billion within 10 years.

The Pickens Plan was feted by Carl Pope of the Sierra Club on The Huffington Post. “To put it plainly, T. Boone Pickens is out to save America,” he wrote. If one can judge a man by his friends and supporters, this would have us worried.”

Ben Johnson is of course correct. While “windmills” do in fact help in producing electricity -when placed on a larger grid- it simply doesn’t meet the nation’s energy demands, including the use of automobiles retrofitted to run on natural gas. Windmills do not offer the electric generating capacity of water driven generators, and the use of natural gas to run automobiles offers no relief on its own, as well as it being a serious safety hazard.
The Tundra Tabloids’ fellow blogger and colleague, TINSC, has been harping about the need to have a multiple of fuel choices “at the pumps” in order to deprive the Saudi led oil cartel, called OPEC, from maintaining its monopoly on oil. TINSC has thought about it in depth for some time now, and as usual, has been way ahead of everyone else in calling for such a change of course in what energy sources the US makes available to the consumer.
Offering choice is a capitalist/American way of thinking, and would go down well with the average American consumer. Another good reason to offer multiple fuel choices at the pump, is to defeat Saudi funded terrorism, its jihad ideology and Islamist supremacism that its spreading to mosques it has been funding throughout the world. And yes, even in the United States.
THE STRATEGIC PATH TO VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR IS THE ELIMINATION OF PETROLEUM AS THE PRIME MOVER OF OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

There! Read that. Remember where you read it and quote your source often.

I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Robert Zubrin recently at the 2008 AIPAC policy conference. We hit it off right on the spot. I merely told him what I wrote above in bold letters. Dr. Zubrin commented that he ALMOST agreed. He repeated what I said and added one word. In Dr. Zubrin’s opinion: “The strategic path to victory in the war on terror is the elimination of petroleum as the ONLY prime mover of our transportation system.”

I’ll let you decide whether that’s “splitting hairs”. I like his attitude. Besides! He’s done a TON more research into this than I have. I’ve been merely following ethanol vehicle fuels because I grew up in Illinois farm country. I’ve long been convinced that America could produce enough ethanol to power our motor vehicle fleet; the largest in the world. Dr. Zubrin has written a book that all but proves it out.

The book is ENERGY VICTORY and it is presented at:

http://www.energyvictory.net/

Of particular importance, PLEASE review the on-line slide show highlighting his thesis.

http://www.energyvictory.net/energy_victory_Presentation.htm

In short, Dr. Zubrin’s thesis is that we could create competition in the motor vehicle fuel business by mandating that all cars sold in the US be flex fuel.

I concur with Dr. Zubrin. Giving American automobile fuel consumers CHOICE will cause competition that will break OPEC’s absolute control over motor vehicle fuel supply. Make OPEC nations work for a living, competing against the rest of the world which can grow something that can be made into ethanol. This competition will cause a significant shrinkage in the capacity of the money pipeline to international terrorism.

The Tundra Tabloids stands fully behind the “FLEX FUEL” option. It offers both a way to curb US imports of Saudi oil while depriving them of their monopoly, as well as giving the free market a role in meeting all of the US’s energy needs. Right now, a highly anti-free market force has been controlling the world’s oil supplies, which runs counter to every international agreement signed to counter such unhealthy practices.

Cartels are NEVER healthy to the growth of free markets, and to the betterment of societies, whether they are state run or publicly held. Just look at the price of oil, and see how a barrel of oil that actually costs $1.50 to pump out of the ground, is magically turned into costing almost $150 a barrel. TINSC’s enthusiasm for “FLEX FUEL” is well warranted, and should be suggested by every American to his or her government representative.

It’s the only logical “American” alternative being promoted to date. Many thanks to TINSC for offering such a logical and cognizant appeal for its implementation in the US fuel grid. *L* KGS

FROM THE COMMENT SECTION:

TINSC: “Natural gas is a viable automotive fuel. It can even be synthasized from coal. Plus, North America has good supplies of natural gas. By replacing natural gas generation with wind generation, the incremental natural gas available could power our motor vehicle fleet. You can power your gasoline powered vehicle right now on natural gas. Just install a tank and a fuel line and it will run. We did this at the electric/gas utility I worked at in the 1980’s. You could switch between gasoline and natural gas seemlessly with a toggle switch. The only drawback is that the natural gas tank took up about 1/2 the trunk. Here’s the real catch: You can’t do this NOW.

Right now, I can go to a gasoline station or two in town and buy E85. It’s readily available all over the Midwest United States and is quickly coming to other regions as distilleries crop up. It’s competitive with gasoline and in time will be made from cheaper processes than the corn ethanol commonly available now.

There is a fair amount of enthusiasm for wind power in the electric utility industry. This is especially true in regions where wind currents are adequate to generate dispatchable power. I’d also add that there is a 523 Megawatt generating plant being built in the Mojave Desert thanks to solar/thermal technology developed in Israel by a company called Solel. This is some serious electric power and not to be confused with the weeny photovoltaic electricity you are more familiar. I can provide a link at a later date. […] Actually, the solar project is a 553 MW plant. A slight typo. Here’s the link.”

TT: I will have to defer to the more knowledgeable voices on the subject. Perhaps electricity generating windmills can be used to free up the natural gas supplies, in order to help fuel a portion of the transportation sector. The safety hazards Ben Johnson alluded to in the article, could of course be dealt with further down the road.

The most important thing I guess, is above all, the ability of the consumer to decide for him or herself, what fuels are best to use. Providing competition at the pumps can only benefit the consumer in the long run. So, the TT stands corrected on the central issue of wind generated power and natural gas being used a alternative sources in helping the transportation sector stay off of Middle eastern oil.

The devil is in the details, and if the US hammers out the bugs in the system and opens up competition at the pumps, it will force the Arab oil barons to lower their prices and break their monopoly in the process. Not a bad scenerio at all.

3 Responses

  1. We need to cut oildependence. Finland for example have so much energyresources that only stupid buys oil from arabs. I wonder when western countries start to establish oil free program in university and company level. What we need is political willingness.

  2. Natural gas is a viable automotive fuel. It can even be synthasized from coal. Plus, North America has good supplies of natural gas. By replacing natural gas generation with wind generation, the incremental natural gas available could power our motor vehicle fleet.

    You can power your gasoline powered vehicle right now on natural gas. Just install a tank and a fuel line and it will run. We did this at the electric/gas utility I worked at in the 1980’s. You could switch between gasoline and natural gas seemlessly with a toggle switch. The only drawback is that the natural gas tank took up about 1/2 the trunk.

    Here’s the real catch: You can’t do this NOW.

    Right now, I can go to a gasoline station or two in town and buy E85. It’s readily available all over the Midwest United States and is quickly coming to other regions as distilleries crop up. It’s competitive with gasoline and in time will be made from cheaper processes than the corn ethanol commonly available now.

    There is a fair amount of enthusiasm for wind power in the electric utility industry. This is especially true in regions where wind currents are adequate to generate dispatchable power.

    I’d also add that there is a 523 Megawatt generating plant being built in the Mojave Desert thanks to solar/thermal technology developed in Israel by a company called Solel. This is some serious electric power and not to be confused with the weeny photovoltaic electricity you are more familiar. I can provide a link at a later date.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *