Meet The Press: Is David Brooks Just Reading The PG&E Prospectus On Air?
(video h/t Heather) Sigh. Apparently David Brooks didn't write a full column on natural gas that he could read on the air this week, so he had to read from some industry literature on the subject. It sure sounded that way to me:
MR. GREGORY: We are back. More of our roundtable with the roundtable here. I want to talk politics. I also want to talk about the politics of gas prices.
Alex, you were saying in the break this is what can be connected economically to the president in terms of an economic downturn. T. Boone Pickens, natural gas advocate, of course, and, and author of "The Pickens Plan For Energy Independence." I spoke with him this week as part of our Press Pass mid-week conversation, which is available on our blog, and he said there was a promise made about energy independence by this president that has not been a promise kept. This is what he said.
(Videotape)
MR. T. BOONE PICKENS: I remember very well what he said when he was nominated. He said that in 10 years we will not import any oil from the Mideast. We're almost three years deep now from when he made that statement. There's been no plan put forth that I've seen, and--since he's been president, to accomplish that unless he started talking about natural gas. And when you get down to it, we don't have a, a number of options.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: David Brooks, a year ago after the gulf oil spill, this president said, "What I will not accept is inaction in the energy debate," and yet that's where we are.
MR. BROOKS: Yeah, well, he joins a long list of presidents who have failed at this. But I do think the natural gas point is an essential point. Wherever you go around the country--western Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas--I've been a lot of places where we're finding new natural gas deposits here. It seems to be the fuel of the future even though it's the fuel of the president. The problem is we don't have the infrastructure to really exploit it. And that--I think this is an area where we have to get over our aversion to fossil fuels and our fantasy that we're going to live off solar and wind, which we're not. And--but that's an intellectual leap that the political class has to make.
If we're really talking about the politics of this, why not talk about how Congress is owned by the resource-extraction sector -- the oil, natural gas, and coal industries -- to the point of disarming the EPA, ignoring science, and allowing industry leaders to "write" imaginary "regulations" of itself? That link points to David Brooks's own newspaper, you think he might have read it. It's absolutely clear that he's read industry propaganda and committed key phrases to memory.
And while a corporate-owned media is old news, we are only beginning to question how much big industries own individuals in the media. It's not enough just to examine who openly sponsors shows like Meet the Press. How much PG&E stock does David Brooks own? What energy companies sit in David Gregory's portfolio? Are the cocktails at the Greenspans' Georgetown soirees completely fracking fluid-free? Are these voices benefiting personally from pushing a pro-industry agenda? Ya think?
Why else would their comments and complete lack of follow-up sound like they are written by the industries themselves?
PS. If you like media outlets that ask these kind of questions, you have to support them. We don't get money for our server costs from the energy industry, we get it in small donations from our readers. Thank you.
Then THIS problem could NOT possibly be happening!!
Windmills To Be Shutdown Because North West Has More Electricity Than Infrastructure Can Handle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob-kmowe8qc
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Aside from the fact that one cannot use too much solar or wind power on any grid because it causes unpredictable instability there is the small problem of raw materials. The combined output of all the wind turbines in the world of say, ethylene, is something less than a thimbleful. To be exact it is a whole thimbleful less than a thimbleful. I've often wondered what people imagine they are going to make things out of without these raw materials.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
You have no idea what you're talking about, because you couldn't possibly believe anything so idiotic.
The grid (even our old crusty piece of shit) is heavily monitored for use and requirements. Generators come off and on line all the time to make up differences. Distributed alternative energy acts just like another power generation station, but is just first in line since it's right next to the consumer, if there's not enough solar/wind/wave/whatever, you fire up the coal and natural gas plants to make up the difference.
I don't know how it is in Canada, although I could certainly pretend I do, but down here we're pretty good at telling if it's sunny or windy out.
I have. And it is not I who does not know whereof he speaks. Matching generated power to requirements is not as easy as you seem to think which is why the malfunction of a single portion of a grid can cascade into a grid wide power outage which can take weeks to recover from. Power is not just dumped into a grid. It must be synchronized and in phase. The more sources feeding in and the harder it is to synchronize. Wind power is particularly susceptible to dropping off the grid in an unpredictable fashion. If it were easy Denmark's installed base of wind power would generate 80 per cent of their usable power instead of the 7 percent they actually get. And I noticed you skipped over the key part of my argument. I look forward to your explanation of how to make tires, asphalt, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, fertilizers and plastics out of solar energy or wind power.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
See, here in the US we have inverters that have already matched the rooftop produced power to the grid. Sorry that tech hasn't hit Canada yet.
How about we make them out of the oil we won't be burning by going to alternative energy sources? Dumping it into the atmosphere is way better than making your precious tires.
So we can't build solar panels because they use some resources that are finite? By your logic, if I can even begin to call it that, we shouldn't be using any oil now because it's a finite resource.
to your illustrious resume as expert economist, political scientist extraordinaire with a concentration in the American political system, as well as a material scientists with graduate something something in something. You happen to be an electrical engineer too.
Sheeet, what have the lowly readers in this anonymous forum done to deserve such level of amazing knowledge via arguments to authority?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
there simple isn't enough of anyone thing. We are going to need to use them all. An "coal" isn't a solution since it pollutes and we don't need the excess CO2. Conservation is best because its cheap, its doable in the short term, and it doesn't pollutes or emits CO2. Solar and Wind is doable. It can be backed by Hydro and Pump Storage. We can also dynamically control consumption by remotely turning down/up/on/off air conditioning, electric heating, refrigaration. When pluggable hybrids become available they can be use as storage/dump for solar/wind power. Replace the current nuclear reactors with inherently safe reactors on a one to one basis. Import LNG.
Buy air futures? Short state and municipal bonds? Corner chemotherapy, hospice and casket futures? Contract convict-labor road crews and in-home palliative care providers? Whores, gambling and dope for the roughnecks, roustabouts and tanker drivers? Boudin rouge, crawfish tails, tasso ham and andouille? Little black boys?
http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtri...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/...
http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2001/...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/envir...
http://badwraps.phpwebhosting.com/stickerhead...
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Texas-ask...
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-dal...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2cHGx0Q1qM
But where are the experts ? And do these two nitwits think there is a shortage of natural gas ? And does David the "expert of nothing" think they should build more infrastructure before they find the gas. I haven't heard where anyone is complaining of a lack of infrastructure for the natural gas industry. Just another example of why the Sunday morning random BS shows are irrelevant.
I suspect that Brooks does not know the method that is used to extract gas. Fracking. It reminds me of Michele Bachmann when she was shown and explained to about Obama's birth certificate. It seemed that she did not know that the certificate was already out in a form that she accepted as valid. She was good to go when she knew that facts ( I would guess she may not be as good to go when she is on FOX). Maybe (probably not) if Brooks was informed about the method of extracting the gas he would not be so gung ho. But maybe there is a good way of extracting gas or maybe there is easier gas to extract. I don't know.
I didn't listen to it, but I'm SURE that he said "of the present" and not "of the president". But, that would have been different for Bobo.
Clearly, Brooks has just taken a valid argument in favor of renewable energy production and applied it to natural gas. The biggest obstacle to solar and wind energy? A lack of infrastructure. Which makes more sense, investing in natural gas infrastructure or renewable energy infrastructure? Brooks would prefer we invest in a finite supply of natural gas that might last 40 years under the rapid expansion of uses in the Pickens "plan".
Is there any government regulations that are keeping private energy companies from spending their own cash to develop these new technologies? Why are WE supposed to be investing in all this? Doesn't the GOP love and adore private enterprise? Isn't there a risk factor that private entrepreneurs always sight as the reason why they deserve to make the big bucks and get tax cuts? Surely all the fine oil companies which are presently making obscene profits, would lo risk THEIR money for the big score at the end of the rainbow. I would doubt that the chicken shit congress would stop them in any way.
When natural gas prices spiked a few years ago, every rig out there started drilling. The only reason the price is low and gas is plentiful is because the producers flooded the market. Yeah, it's a cheap, "sort-of" clean fuel, but that doesn't mean we should burn it all up as fast as we can.
a fact.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Come on, Brooksie! Technology roll-outs follow the "hockey stick" or "29th day" (50% of the entire roll-out on the last day) adoption pattern. If we do plan on energy independence, the technology has to be perfected first, then put in place. We're talking about technologies a bit more complicated and ubiquitous than color tv's and cellphones, so give Obama a break. The future is coming, no matter how much certain firms and countries drag their heels.
Yup, Bobo just reinforces my decision to keep the television off.
FRACK U!
Fiction: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/cla...
Reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgtONu6gT1E
LNG is an internationally traded commodity. New York will get some, Germany and Italy can still afford some. China and India have developing economies; we have empty strip malls full of pawn shops, check-cashing/ liquor stores, PowerBall discount ciggy shops, bail bondsmen, underage whores and pill-mills. Why does anybody presume we own our gas, oil, coal or uranium? Who sells them this crap? FOX? CNN? http://www.propublica.org/article/response-to... http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/pdf...
expert in none.
He's gone from failing miserably to grasp basic philosophical concepts in some of his funniest columns, to now talk about a subject he is even less acquainted with (which in his case it is sort of a feat).
Check his TED talk in "human nature" it is a hoot, as far as train wrecks can be funny sort of way.
What I am baffled is why the US media keeps bringing these sort of "general purpose experts," who are so incredibly pedestrian and uninformed that they would be laughed out of most international and serious forums on the matter they are tackling at that time. While this same media completely ignores and belittles the actual experts who know a thing or to in the specific subject and have a real body of work in it.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
we have to get over our aversion to fossil fuels and our fantasy that we're going to live off solar and wind, which we're not.
How shallow and short sighted.
Computers, not that long ago were the size of a room. The first PC had far less computing power than your cell phone does. We're smart people and the only people stopping us are the naysayers.
Get car batteries to the size of a 2 liter bottle and make them easily interchangeable. That is a revolution using existing infrastructure. The efficiency and size of solar panels can and is improving. Some sustainable homes use only windows and the sun.
http://youtu.be/bVxQOEeGDWA
I'm sure somebody has very good reasons why this won't work or it will take decades. I can assure you it will with that attitude. We went to the moon in 10 years. We are far down the road on sustainable energy. I think we all know why it is so hard to get over the hump with this. $
Too many people keep looking to the past. To many people live in fear instead of vision and hope. So to all you naysayers, evolution will take care of you.
Unity-Sustainablity
Comments are closed on this entry