Jim Think!

Of Vital Interest to the United States

2011-03-07T09:13:00.003-06:00

The question "Is it of vital interest to the United States to remove Gadhafi from power?" was asked many times on the Sunday news shows this week. No one that I heard actually answered the question. It is a sad day when someone feels they even need to ask this question.

A more important question might be "Is it of vital interest to the United States to be in an energy position such that some nut on the other side of the world who controls 3% of the worlds oil can't wreak havoc on energy prices in the United States when a civil war erupts." The answer to this is a resounding "Hell Yes". It is of vital interest to the United States to have a policy which leads to the end of our dependence on foreign oil. Why can't we get focussed on that?

High Speed Rail - Where it makes sense

2011-02-17T11:29:00.003-06:00

I am a proponent of high speed rail. President Obama has just suggested a budget that includes $53B over the next 6 years for a coast to coast high speed rail network? I should be happy, right? I am not happy. I think the priorities are wrong. While I believe that high speed rail makes a lot of sense, I think we need to look closer at where it makes sense.

My first choice is city center to city center between cities with high business travel by car or air, where the train travel would actually be faster and presumably cheaper than either automobile or air. Some examples include:

NE Corridor: between Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York, Boston
Texas: connecting DFW, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio
North Carolina: Charlotte, Triad, Triangle
California: San Diego, LA, San Jose, San Francisco

I am sure there are others not mentioned here. The most obvious routes in the above list are the NE Corridor, and the Texas Routes. I have concern that it will be hard to beat air travel between LA and the Bay Area destinations, but considering airport security wait time, it still may be viable.

The economics of the high speed rail will most likely return a profit only if it is able to replace air travel, and some auto travel between destinations. It the business case is profitable, it should attract private investment. If it is not, it doesn't make sense for the government to spend on it either. As much as I want high speed rail, the $53B investment may just be too much, too soon.

Business Investment Deferral - A tax compromise idea

2010-08-08T11:09:00.004-05:00

I watched a discussion on the "to extend or not extend" debate regarding the Bush tax cuts on "Meet the Press" this morning. If I understood it correctly, one of the major arguments is over the democratic position of 'let taxes go up for people over $250K' and the republican position of 'many or even most small businesses would be affected and thus dampen growth'.

What I propose is a new tax deferral I call the 'Business Investment Deferral', which would allow small businesses to defer a portion of their profits (over $250k) for future investment without being taxed. Sort of a section 175c capital expense in reverse. I would propose that this deferral must be spent within 2 years, or be taxed at the then current rate.

Example: Let's suppose I have profit from a sole proprietorship of $400k. This is my only income, and I need $250k to support my family lifestyle. This option would allow me to defer tax on $150k of the income for up to two years so that I can accumulate enough capital to grow the business. I take the $150k into the next year purchase some additional capital equipment and hire 2 new employees. The capital equipment is purchased for 75k as a section 175c investment and is paid for with the BID money. The net is 175c = $0 and the deferred amount is now 75k. My business income profit for the next year shrinks to $250k but I am still whole. Everyone is happy.

Something like this might work. I won't begin to argue that $250k is way to low a number to call someone rich, but that's a whole different argument. What it does is differentiate the difference in a small business with profits over $250k, and an individual or family with total taxable income over $250k.

Will the iPad be as revolutionary for me as the iPhone?

2010-01-31T08:41:00.004-06:00

I resisted carrying a cell phone for years. I finally relented when I did my last consulting assignment, and now carry one at all times. The first one I really liked was the Blackberry Pearl. It did Phone as well as PIM functions and was small enough to carry in a pocket, which I much prefer to a case.

I got an iPhone when they first came out. The original iPhone. I have since upgraded to 3G, and now 3GS. I consider it the greatest techno widget I have ever owned. The sheer magnitude of the functions it performs is staggering. Consider, as a frequent business traveler, the difference between traveling to strange cities alone in the mid-seventies, and traveling with the iPhone now.

Navigation:

Then: Get a map at the rental car counter

Now: Key in destination for turn-by-turn directions

Call Home:

Then: When you get to the hotel, call and give phone number and room number to spouse

Now: Place safe arrival call as soon as you land while taxiing to gate.

Find a place to eat:

Then: Ask desk clerk at hotel, or read hotel guide

Now: Bring up location based services app such as Around Me, Zagat, or Yelp

Mugged:

Then: Find a place to call police

Now: If phone not stolen, use phone to call 911. If phone stolen, use computer to find phone.

To be fair, there was a period when I had some of these before iPhone. I had an IBM x40 Thinkpad (very small and light). I had a USB connected GPS and Delorme Street Atlas. It would give me directions, show points of interest, but it always took a few minutes to get it going, was difficult read in bright sun, and the biggest thing, it wouldn't fit in my pocket. Small as it was, it still needed an over the shoulder carry bag.

What the iPhone did for me was replace all of the needs to carry a computer when traveling unless it is needed for business. For me, the only significant issue with the iPhone was that it's small size causes eyestrain for this old man if I try to read for a long time, watch TV, or anything like that. I wished it could be just a bit bigger.

Enter the iPad

When I first started hearing rumors about an Apple tablet, I was really excited. There were a lot of different screen sizes rumored, and the one I so fixed my thoughts on was one that would be about 5x7 in size and had all of the hardware, including the phone, that came with the iPhone. It would still be small enough to be carried in a pocket (such as a vest pocket in a jacket), but would be large enough to be read as easily as one of the millions of paperback books of that size.

What Apple announced is cool, really cool, but it is too big. For my lifestyle, it's imperative that it fit in a pocket. I want a senior size iPhone. If one appears, I will trade my existing iPhone for it. Until then, even if I buy an iPad for whatever reason, I'll still need my iphone as the current iPad will not replace it. The iPad, as announced, will not revolutionize my life the way the iPhone has.

Life's Little Irritants: Breaking News Abuse

2009-08-31T08:11:00.002-05:00

Breaking News banners are going the way of the 'boy who cried wolf'!

I used to stop what I was doing the moment I heard of 'Breaking News' on the TV, Radio, or whatever the source was. Breaking News was truly a new and newsworthy event. No more!

Not only do the cable news networks such as CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and others use the 'Breaking News' for stories that just aren't worthy, they use it over and over again, declaring Breaking News on the same identical story they reported in the previous hours.

If there could be a law on 'Breaking News', it would be that it can only be used the first time the story is broadcast. Any repeat can be labeled 'Top News', but by my definition a repeat is not 'Breaking News'

While this gripe applies broadly to all of the Cable TV News Networks, I do want to commend those breaking news SMS feeds for not following this practice. If TV is annoying, imagine how repeat SMS would be.

My Driveway Container Experiment

2009-07-13T10:54:00.002-05:00

I created a container garden on my driveway earlier this year because I believed that my prime vegetable garden spot wasn't getting enough sun. It's between two brick walls and was only getting about 4 hours of direct sun a day.

As a comparison, I planted some of the identical plants in containers in the old spot so I could directly measure the differences. I installed automated watering for both, attempting to apply similar water in both locations.

The control plants were:

Heatwave Tomatoes

Texas Sweet Onions

Burpless Cucumbers

Jalapeno Peppers

Strawberries

Green Onions

Basil

Curly leaf Parsley

Observations as of mid-July

Early in the season, the driveway garden won hands down. The driveway garden receives twice the sun of the sideyard garden, and it was evident in early tomato production. The strawberries and Texas Sweet Onions also did much better, the onions producing fully formed onions sooner, and the strawberries thrived where in previous years they bore poorly in the sideyard.

However, as of today, the sideyard garden is producing good tomatos, cucumbers, parsley, and basil, while all plants except the strawberries, peppers, and basil in the driveway garden are showing extreme heat stress. More water isn't noticeably helping.

I'm thinking of changing the experiment in the fall. The driveway container garden sits on a white concrete driveway, and is on the East side of a 6 foot brick wall. It gets sun from about 2 hours after sunrise until about Noon, and then becomes sheltered from direct sun after that. I'm thinking the combination of the direct sun, the collection and reflection of heat by both the brick wall and the concrete may just be too much.

My plan is to move the container garden to the center of the driveway, forming a single mine down the center with a lane for a car on each side. This would provide for more sun, more air circulation, and less accumulated heat from the brick wall.

This past year, I planted winter lettuce in the sideyard garden. My observation is that it really didn't do well until late winter, when the lettuce produced quite well until about mid May. My hope is that the center driveway location will provide more sun for lettuce growth during mid-winter.

I'll report again next Spring on the results of the next experiment.

Life's Little Irritants: Food Labeling

2009-04-18T13:55:00.002-05:00

I've been trying to count calories and cholesterol lately, and at times it get's really frustrating. It has to do with trying to look good without necessarily being so. Take an example on a can of Pam Organic Canola Oil Spray.

The label says 0g Fat, 0g Trans Fat, 0mg Cholesterol. Also 0 calories, and 0 calories from fat. Sounds good, right? Well then, look at the serving size: 1/5 second (spray time). Servings per container: 419. WHAT? Did anyone ever try to cook with 1/5 second of cooking spray? It looks like if you can list 0 for a value if the true value is less than 0.50 of a gram, and perhaps less than 0.5% of daily value. At the serving size specified, all the values are zero. The label certainly doesn't tell you anything. It is totally useless. From reading a label on a bottle of Canola Oil, Canola Oil contains about 14g of fat per tbsp., which is also 14g of product.

Doing a little math, it takes spraying about 10 seconds to get 1 tbsp of product by the spray. I probably don't spray 10 secs, but I do probably spray 2 secs. That would make a reasonable serving 2.8 g of fat.

Now why can't they just say that on the label?

Another example is content by deduction. An example, Total fat: 6g. Saturated fat: 2g. Of the 4 grams not specified, any idea how much is polyunsaturated fat and how much is monounsaturated fat? I haven't a clue!

Life's Little Irritants: Left Turn on Green Arrow Only

2009-04-16T15:48:00.002-05:00

I am going to begin my "Life's Little Irritants" series with one of my least favorite signs, "Left Turn on Green Arrow Only". This is such a time waster. The government feels a need to protect us from ourselves. No one is allowed to think and make a decision on when it is safe to make a left turn.

I agree that there is value to protected left turn arrows. Some times the traffic is so heavy that without a left arrow, it would be a long wait for a break in traffic, and then only one or two cars could make the turn.

However, the 'Left Turn on Green Arrow Only' is carring the protection too far. For most times during the day, cars just sit, waiting for the green arrow for minutes at a time with no cars in sight in any direction. Such a waste of time.

I am tempted to make the turn anyway, ignoring the little sign, but I try to be a law abiding citizen. So I wait, and I get irritated, and I still wait.

Frustrations of Interstate Driving

2009-04-13T10:17:00.003-05:00

I just returned from a lengthy, but brief, road trip. My wife and I drove 1700 miles spread out over only 3 days. 850 Dallas to Knoxville on Friday, and 850 Knoxville to Dallas on Sunday. On a good day with sunshine and light traffic, 850 miles is about my driving limit. On a bad day, with heavy traffic and heavy rain, it's just too far.

The Sunday trip was a fiasco of bad alternatives. About 6 hours of the 14 hour trip were in heavy rain. Visibility was down to about 200 yards, and the road between Memphis and Texarkana was loaded with traffic. Interstate 40 between Memphis and Little Rock is always heavy 18 wheeler traffic, and dealing with it in the rain is espescially stressful.

The alternatives are drive the speed limit and go with the flow, even in poor visibility; slow down and risk being run over or contributing to a traffic problem; or just get off the road or find another route. I chose go with the flow, even though the visibility was extremely poor, probably bad judgement and high risk. This brings me to the point of this post: Driving our interstate highways can be a high risk activity!

Here are some of the frustrations:

Speed Limits and Speed enforcement vary from state to state.

Different speed limits in different states are certainly understandable. Miles of open road I-90 in Montana or I-80 in Wyoming certainly justify higher speeds than I-95 in New England. What's more difficult to understand is the wide variations in enforcement. Why isn't a speed limit a speed limit? It's a guessing game to figure out what the magic number is. As a law abiding citizen, I drive at the speed limit on the open road. In some cases, this is more hazardous than going with the flow.

On the otherhand, I passed no less than 10 radar checks in Tennessee enroute between Knoxville and Memphis. The speed limit was generally 70, and much of the traffic was flowing at about 75. What speed was too much? Who knows?

There is way to much speed variations among vehicles on the road

No matter how fast you drive, someone will go faster. No matter how slow you go, someone will go slower. Extremes in either direction created hazardous and frustrating situations.

The dangers of average speed

In hilly or mountainous country, trucks especially seem to practice the concept of average speed. What this means is in a stretch of road with a speed limit of 65, you may find trucks slowing to 45 going uphill and accelerating to 85 going downhill. It is so frustrating to get behind trucks going uphill, trying to pass each other, with one going 45 mph and the other going 46. If you are able to get by this problem, you are promptly blown away by both of them going downhill at 80 a few minutes later.

The lower the speed limit, the greater the violations

As I said before, I usually drive the speed limit. Last summer, driving through West Texas where the speed limit was 75, I drove 75. Almost no one passed me, and I passed very few myself. It seems most people just don't want to go faster than about 75.

Friday, as I approached Knoxville, in East Tennessee, the speed limit steadily is reduced from 70, to 65, and then to 55 as you near the city. At 70, the ration of cars passing me to cars I was passing was about 50/50. At 65, it was probably about 60/40, and at 55, it was about 90/10. This is frustration at it's extreme. Why adopt a speed limit you have no intent to enforce?

Size Matters

Trucks are way bigger than cars, all cars. All cars lose when they hit trucks. But! as we trend toward smaller cars, the matter gets worse. My wife and I used to own a Mercedes SLK. This is a really small car. On several occasions we were nearly pushed off the road by an 18 Wheeler whose driver simply didn't see us.

Self imposed solutions

I can't fix this problem. Maybe, over time, our efforts to reduce our oil dependence and switch to alternative fuels will also bring changes to our transportation infrastructure which may address some of these problems. Meanwhile, I'm going to impose some changes on myself to try and lower both stress and risk when I travel.

As a retired citizen, time is not as important as it used to be. So, for starters, I am going to try and avoid the very busiest of the Interstate Highways, and enjoy more of the countryside. I get way better gas milage in my SUV at 60 than I do at 70 anyway, so slowing down and taking the less traveled byways may be both more scenic and less stressful.

Obama is saying some good things on energy

2009-02-12T10:03:00.003-06:00

If you listen to President Obama, he's saying some good things about energy and environment. Here's a recent quote:

"So transportation, when it is not just fixing our old transportation systems, but it’s also imagining new transportation systems. That’s why I’d like to see high speed rail where it can be constructed. I would like for us to invest in mass transit. Because potentially that’s energy efficient and I think a lot more people are open now to thinking regionally in terms of how we plan our transportation infrastructure. The days where we’re just building sprawl forever? Those days are over. I think that Republicans, Democrats… everybody recognizes that that’s not a smart way to design communities. So we should be using this money to help spur this kind of innovative thinking when it comes to transportation. That’ll make a big difference.”

My daughter is an environmental planner. Here's what she had to say just last week:

"...Increase densities in cities with growth boundaries and incentives to decrease build-out. Make residential green building design affordable..."

I can see that idea beginning to work in my community of Las Colinas in Irving, Tx. Las Colinas has been a planned development for nearly 30 years now. It had an explosion in the early 80's, and then some stagnation in the 90's, Recently, the activity in the Las Colinas urban center has picked up dramitically. Why, because light rail is coming. With the Las Colinas light rail connection to downtown coming in 2011, and then connecting to DFW airport shortly thereafter, a major influx of high density building is taking off.

Light rail centered development has already occurred in Dallas at Mockingbird Station, downtown at Victory Plaza, and others. And it isn't just Dallas. Other cities have seen this as well. What I hope for is that this goes beyond using rail to travel around the metroplex. High Speed rail interconnecting major Texas cities like Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, Dallas-Houston, Dallas-Denver, would open major new realms of low cost, environmentally friendly travel.

We need not only the spending, but an attitude change by Americans to make this possible. The attitude change is already underway in our younger generations, it just needs to spread to the old folks in congress.

Death by Regulation

2009-01-16T10:46:00.002-06:00

I was listening this morning to a report about alternative energy delimmas caused by solar and wind projects that can't seem to get their product to market because of resistance to building transmission lines. They site environmental regulations, not-in-my-backyard attitudes, difficulty getting permits from everyone as major hurdles.

I certainly agree that transmission towers are ugly. All above ground utilities are ugly. I used to own a house here in Irving, Tx that I loved. It had a great floorplan. It had exactly what my wife and I needed. My biggest problem with it is that the room on the second floor that I would use for my office had only one window, and it looked straight on to an electric pole with a power transformer only 25 feet away. That transformer was a major factor in my deciding to sell that house. So I understand when communities and homeowners take a stand against high voltage transmission lines in their back yard. They are ugly, and some would say even dangerous to those in their shadow.

Continuing with my own example, I moved from the house with the transformer and bought a house next to a gas pipeline. The pipeline was underground and protected by a 50 foot wide pipeline easement. It wasn't ugly, in fact, it gave me a 50 foot buffer to the next lot and thus much more privacy than I might of otherwise had. Was it dangerous? I don't know. It didn't have an issue in the years that I lived there, and indeed the only reminders that it was actually was the occasionally fly over of an inspection plan every few months.

Here's my point: We should build all new transmission lines underground. I know it's more expensive, but as I have previously suggested, it will not only mitigate the nay-sayers but potentially may become part of a multi-use right of way where appropriate.

There will need to be amendments to environmental and other regulations that enable swift approval and streamlined right of way aquisition for these underground lines as environmental disturbance, if properly built, will be only temporary and completely transparent in a very short time.

I am not advocating that the United States become as ruthless as the Chinese when it comes to economic progress. Amendments to environmental regulations must protect the intent of preserving, but we have to be able to adapt to change, and we have to do it without years and years of delays.

Wind Generated Electric Cars ranked most friendly

2009-01-13T15:40:00.002-06:00

An article by Mark Z. Jacobson, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/balanced-score-card-alternative-transportationenergy-source-_ranks-wind-electric-first-ethanol-last.php , listed Battery Electric Vehicles, charged by wind generated electricity, as the top Alternative Energy amongst known alternatives.

Not surprisingly, the article also lists Ethanol, wheter derived from corn or cellulose, as last. A few months ago, National Geographic Magazine also berated Ethanol as a marginal alternative fuel.

So why does our government pay out huge Ethanol subsidies? The answer may lie in the lobbists and a blind effort to do something, even if it is wrong. Not only was the Ethanol subsidy the wrong thing for the planet's energy alternatives, it was the wrong thing for the price of food. We simply can't afford to burn our food for energy.

Let's hope the new administration can deal with the error of our ways on Ethanol, and put the savings into the electric grid infrastructure.

A New Electric Grid should be multi-purpose

2009-01-10T12:03:00.002-06:00

In his major speech on the economy, President-elect Obama mentioned the electric grid as one of his infrastructure investment proposals. This is a much needed investment that could be made much more useful if it could be implemented as a multipurpose right-of-way as I first proposed in this blog on Nov. 13.

The two most important elements of the multipurpose right-of-way are the underground electric grid and the high speed electric powered passenger rail service.

With the exception of a few routes, passenger service in the United States is provided over rails designed many decades ago and most Amtrak trains are limited to 79 mph maximum speed. This speed limit severely limits the ability for rail travel to compete with airlines or automobiles. High Speed, environmentally friendly, electric trains would change this equation, and in my judgement significantly change preferred alternatives in favor of rail for travel of 500 miles or less.

Flying has become such a hassle. TSA delays, weather delays, luggage restrictions, and ground transportation all make us seek an alternative. I believe such an alternative may be rail, and we can began by coupling it to our planned grid infrastructure improvements.

Do you know...Where we're going To?

2008-12-18T20:16:00.002-06:00

A song, a direction, what?

Barack Obama has announced his energy team, and his Interior secretary. Where do we go from here?

I'm impressed with the energy secretary and equally unimpressed with the Interior secretary.

Here's my view:

Corn Ethanol has to be OUT!
Natural Gas should be IN!
Nuclear power should be IN!
Clean Coal shoud be OUT, unless it is really Clean, if so, it should be IN!
Wind should be IN in every way.
There should be a federal policy that overrides any homeowner association restrictions on Solar power installations for domestic power generation.
There should be mandatory acceptance of reverse power credit. (meaning if you generate more than you use, the power company must give your credit.)

Regarding Interior department positions:

I support 'right to carry' based on states policies on weapons
I want increased funding of National Parks
There should be 'line of sight' restrictions on BLM development
We should allow ANWR development with strict restrictions.
There should be mandatory air quality improvements in critical parks such as 'Great Smoky Mountains National Park'

These are my views as of today, December 18, 2008

Super Highway Corridor of the Future

2008-11-13T09:16:00.003-06:00

Why not build a new kind of superhighway consisting of an integrated set of components.

An underground high voltage transmission line as a part of our next generation transmission grid.

The underground transmission grid is already being proposed by advocates of a new grid system. The advantage of integrating the transmission grid with tracks and roadway are to take advantage of this proximity to massive power to make adding the infrastructure for the trains and the roadways significantly less expensive because of the power availability.
Tracks and supporting infrastructure for high speed magna-lev and / or conventional electric trains

Inexpensive high speed transportation point to point could provide a quality alternative to air travel over short to medium distance hauls. For distances of 500 miles or less, high speed 'bullet' type electric trains or magnalev trains would likely be able to provide shorter total transit time from downtown to downtown than air travel.
Roadways for electric cars.

The electric car roadways would both power and charge electric cars using this roadway. This roadway would be a limited access toll road providing not only and electricity supply to power and charge the cars using it, so that batteries would be fully charged on exit of the roadway. Toll charges would automatically be computed based on KW used. There could be automated lanes, similar to the HOV lane concept, that provided computerized control, such that, once entering the lanes, the cars could literally drive themselves along the route with drivers taking over again on exiting the automated portion of the roadway.

This concept could work with any of the electric car designs currently in progress with the addition of electrical pickup hardware and control logic. The cool thing about this proposal is that once a pickup and charging standard were developed, there could be benefit even if the road segments were discontiguous as they would provide a 'charge on the fly' capability for whatever length they exist.

This is probably not an original idea. It may not even be a good one, but it seems so logical to me. It rolls a set of ideas and directions proposed by so many of our energy leaders into an ultramodern composite. It's the stuff of sciencefuture.

If the next administration is going to invest in a massive energy independence program, a massive jobs program, and a massive infrastructure rebuilding program why not build the future, not just more of the past. Integrate the ideas I say.

Elections over, now the environment!

2008-11-04T16:38:00.002-06:00

Tonight the voting is over but the counting is just beginning. No matter who wins, tomorrow is a new day. The exit polls say the number 1 issue is the economy. That's American...whatever ails you most at the moment.

I'm in the midst of a 2000 mile driving trip. With gas prices less than half what I paid this summer on my trip to Yellowstone, it's no wonder Americas short term memory is wrapped areound saving us from the misdeeds of a Wall Street few.

I hope that the new president will take a serious look at ranking the energy alternatives in terms of the total environmental cost of each, and choose some national priorities to pursue with an unprecendented national goal.

Good luck to the winner. You will need it.

A lot of damage can be done in a very short time

2008-10-27T18:13:00.003-05:00

Remember the election of 1992? Bill Clinton, a relatively unknown Democratic Govenor, was elected president, and inheirited a Democratic Congress in both the house and senate.

And then what happened? In late 1993, the democratic triumferant passed a retroactive tax increase that caused me, and many other Americans great pain.

This is what happened to me. I had an opportunity to take an early retirement incentive, and use the incentive dollars to start my own consulting business. The retirement incentive was paid as a lump sum, using the then in effect withholding guidelines.

I took the money and invested in my new business. Then, along came the retroactive tax increase. This caused an unexpected and significant tax burden which severely damaged my new business.

I tell this story because we are in danger of having this same exact thing happen again. We are possibly going to elect a new democratic president with a possible filabuster-proof democratic congress. We are about to get reamed again. It won't be me this time, but the next generation.

America woke up in 1994 and resoundly defeated the democratic congressional majority, but in those short two years, the damage was done. Don't let this happen again!

Colin Powell endorses Obama. Now what?

2008-10-19T18:50:00.003-05:00

Colin Powell gave an eloguent endorsement of Obama on NBC's Face the Nation this morning. I understand Powell's rationale, and it is pretty sound. Obama could be a 'New Frontier' kind of guy, in ways similar to JFK. There is no doubt that Obama has skills as demonstrated by his oratory. He is intelligent. Of that there is no doubt.

My concern remains 'Where is this man on the liberal scale?' His record puts him way left, further left than I have ever voted. His rhetoric moves him slightly right of his voting record, still left of my idealism.

I had wanted McCain to choose Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Now this is a true 'Maverick' position. Instead, he cowtowed to the conservative right and chose Sarah Palin. Palin is an interesting character, besieged by liberal media who want to declare her unqualified. The media crucify her for her lack of understanding of international affairs. How unfair! She is a state govenor. Her qualifications for being a govenor of a state is that she understand the state issues. She beat out a lot of people to be elected govener because she has spunk.

Sarah Palin has shown she can compete. Her qualifications are very similar to Bill Clinton's when he was elected president. True, Bill Clinton is an eloquent speaker, and true, Bill Clinton is a bright guy, but both Clinton and Palin had similar experiences before emerging on the national scene. And there is another important difference. Clinton was running for president, and Palin is running for vice-president.

McCain is clearly the more experienced leader of the bunch, and has consistently demonstrated his ability to work both sides of the aisle to get things done, collaborating with the liberal likes of Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold to introduce legislation.

Powell's dismissal of Palin as unqualified is assuming that she is running for president. She is not. McCain is running for president, and the odds of Palin ascending to the presidency in McCain's first term are less than 20% from a health standpoint.

Consider this: a 20% probability Palin will be president in the next 4 years if McCain is elected vs. 100% probability that Obama will be president if he is elected.

I stand with John McCain, because I believe he will maintain some semblance of Federalist principles, while taking a far more moderate approach to governance. Sorry, General Powell, we just disagree. I still plan to vote for John McCain.

Politics and Energy - My Perspective

2008-10-12T17:59:00.002-05:00

I have been a political maverick all my voting life. The first time I could vote was 1964, and I voted for Goldwater. In 1968, I voted for George Wallace, although it wasn't because I particularly liked Wallace, it was because I din't like Nixon and would never vote for as liberal a guy as Hubert Humphfrey. Since then, it has been mostly republican except that I voted for Ross Perot when he ran.

This year, I promised myself I would vote for the guy with the best energy policy, because it is my number one issue. Obama has the best energy policy, but I am shaking in my Texas boots because of his very liberal record and relative lack of experience.

I definitely was impressed by Obama's ranking energy as his number 1 priority, and equally unimpressed by McCain basically waffling on his priorities.

My issue is does Obama walk the walk as well as talk the talk? I am really nervous about that.

Energy Priorities of the candidates

2008-10-04T20:27:00.002-05:00

With all of the obfuscation caused by the financial crisis, it's hard to figure out where the candidates are relative to energy priorities. If you look at the websites http://www.barackobama.com and http://www.johnmccain.com, you will discover that each has a well articulated energy policy.

Barack Obama would, on the surface, seem to be more agressive. John McCain's police is actually more believeable, having slightly more conservative but possible more realistic goals.

Here's the rub. With all of the recent economic calamities, where do each put their energy priorities? Reading their websites leaves me not totally clear on their priorities. Obama seems to put social issues first. McCain isn't clear at all.

Inquiring minds want to know where they stand on the energy independence/environmental issues exactly,

Energy is losing focus

2008-09-19T20:54:00.002-05:00

With all of the developments in finance this week, energy is losing focus. In reality, energy is a major contributor to our meltdown.

The US is in a weak position. Minus 700B on oil, the other issues of our economy are heightened magnitude.

We must not lose sight of the main problem...major negative cashflow as a result or our dependence on foreigh oil is a significant contributor to our national problem.

Please don't lose sight of the issues. Despite the greed, lack of oversight and whatever ails the economy, we still need to focus on the balance of energy. We must not let the financial crisis divert us.

Another Hurricane, Another Lesson

2008-09-13T19:44:00.002-05:00

Ike has struck the Texas Gulf coast. At least 13 refineries shut down. Regardless of damage, they can't restart until electricity is restored. Some Americans face gasoline shortages. Others face price increases. Is this the best we can do?

Hurricanes on the gulf are as sure as death and taxes. To be in a position where our national infrastructure is so threateded by such a guaranteed occurance seems pretty unreasonable to me.

Why don't we fix this?

Diversity in energy would help. Power service designed to be uninterruptable by hurricanes seems so obvious. But yet, having suffered recently from Katrina and Rita, we still have the same problem. Are there not any strategic thinkers or spenders in America?

The Republicans need an energy goal

2008-09-04T09:31:00.002-05:00

Last night, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin talked about the need to explore and expand all forms of energy, from off shore drilling, ANWR drilling, nuclear, and alternatives. She said we needed to do it all.

I agree, but I think we need a national priority goal. John McCain has said things like '45 more nuclear power plants by 2030', which is a great goal, but it is not comprehensive enough.

I want a goal that reshapes our infrastructure, just as the space program reshaped so much of the micro-electronics that we have today. We need a bold goal regain energy independence and reduce environmental damage.

I think the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President was a brilliant forward looking decision. Now we need one for energy policy.

Medians: Energy Corridors we already own

2008-08-28T18:53:00.002-05:00

We need a new electric grid. We need power for electric trains. We need a way to get the power from wind farms and solar arrays. We need right-of-way.

But Wait! We already own medians in interstate highways. Lets put them to work!

Medians vary widely. It some cases, they are wide enought for a dual track main line and megawatts of electric transmission. In other cases, maybe they are only wide enough to build supports for an elevated alternative. In eather case they exist. Building on them will be variable, depending on size, but in all cases it should be doable.

Let's build an energy highway in our medians. It doesn't have to be ugly. We can do it now, and we don't have to debate right-of-way acquisition.

Oh! The perils of the energy alternatives

2008-08-27T19:43:00.002-05:00

It's not easy being Green! Kermit was so right!

So very many of the alternatives are so themselves frought with hidden costs.

Opponents of wind power claim it kills birds and bats.
Opponents of Corn Ethanol claim it takes almost as much energy to create it you get from it, and that it uses some of the worlds food supply
Opponents of Nuclear Energy claim we haven't solve safety and spent fuel disposal issues
There are hidden CO2 production issues in making Hydrogen, which burns polution free in fuel cells
Fuel cells themselves require elements and compounds which are in short supply
Electric car batteries use materials we buy from China and may be in short supply

Issues, yes. That doesn't mean we should stop, it just means we have a lot of problems to solve before we can declare fossil fuels obsolete.

It's not easy being Green!

Lest we forget history

2008-08-11T19:04:00.002-05:00

For those of us who are old enough to remember WWII and the Cold War, the recent actions by Russia stir the old memories. It is scary, as there is great risk in dealing with what is going on in Georgia.

Apparently, Russia has calculated that the US is weakened and distracted by it's commitments in the Middle East. Indeed, it does put us in an incredibly difficult position.

What this illustrates above all else is that the world is a dangerous place. Any perceived weakness among the major powers may be tested, and that the American presidency is not place for on-the-job training.

This was last most evident in 1960, when John Kennedy and Richard Nixon faced off in what ended as the then closest election. Richard Nixon had served 8 years as Vice-President to Dwight D. Eisenhower. John Kennedy was a young senator with a war record a lot of money, and magical charisma. Republicans, such as John Tower (R, TX) warned specifically that the US Presidency was not a place for on-the-job training. An excerpt of his opinions appeared Sunday on Meet the Press. And it was almost true. Disasters such as the Bay of Pigs punctuated mistakes by the young president. His legacy was saved by the Soviet response to the Cuban Missle Crisis.

So today we have a new election. A new kid on the block, O'Bama, and a senior senator John McCain. We have a new resurgence of Russian power, increasing China power, threats form Iran, A loose cannon in Israel, and we have to make choices in a major election. If you agree that the US presidency, the most powerful, and most dangerous job on the planet is not a place for unproven judgement, then we all need to look carefully at who we decide to put in this position.

I am seriously worried about the outcome.

Drill Here, Drill Now! Pay Less?

2008-08-09T21:32:00.002-05:00

I read a lot of opinions on the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less forums today. There are a lot of people with very impassioned opinions supported by all manner of graphs, charts, references, quotes, projections, etc. They argue about how much oil there is, and how quickly we can get it out. They argue about whether it can make a difference or whether whatever oil we pump from new American sources will just get lost in the rounding.

Here's what I think.

We should drill here and drill now. Whatever we find will have two positive benefits. One, it will help delay the inevitable time when we cannot meet demand, and two, it will be some added insurance against supply interruptions as a result of future conflict. I don't see the pay less part being a significant factor because of the worldwide demand.

Whatever we do will help buy time to develop viable alternatives, but let's be clear about one thing: Drill Here, Drill Now, is in no way an alternative to developing renewable fuels. It is a delaying tactic to help us make the massive transition to a new kind of transportation infrastructure.

Drill Here, Drill Now is a necessary evil. It's a finger in the dike. What is most important is that no matter what we discover, there is no alternative to developing the renewable alternative sources.

Please leave the strategic Oil Reserve alone!

2008-08-05T15:48:00.002-05:00

O'Bama, Pilosi, and others want to tap the strategic oil reserve just because the gas prices are to high. Do these people not understand the word 'strategic'?

The foreign oil supply to the United States is the first thing that would be interrupted by a war against any significant adversary. In that instance it could be the lifeblood of our military in a very short period of time.

The strategy reserve is to protect us against supply problems. We don't have supply problems, we have cost problems. The strategic reserve should not be tapped for cost reasons.

Why is developing alternative energy fuels a crisis?

2008-08-05T11:37:00.003-05:00

Everybody is talking about alternative energy investments. Yesterday (Aug 4, 08) John McCain, Barack O'Bama, and T. Boone Pickens all had their share of national attention. Each focused on various plans to move forward. Why all the attention? Did Al Gore finally win over their hearts and souls on Global Warming (aka Global Climate Change)? No! It's the money!

Ever since T. Boone Pickens started flooding the airwaves with ads about the $700B a year transfer to the oil producing states and the realization that over time this will bankrupt the United States, the nation, and thus the polititians, have started to focus on the real problem: The entire planet doesn't have enough fossil fuels to meet the growing global demand indefinately, and as the law of supply and demand drives prices up, we can't afford to meet our growing needs even if it did!

For a moment, put aside all of the global climate change issues, and focus on this fact: The US can't supply it's own needs for petroleum, and we must buy a significant part of our supply from others. Additional exploration and development of our onshore and near offshore resources may lessen imports somewhat, and postpone the depletion of petroleum resources, but we will eventually run out, some day, some year, in the future.

These facts alone mandate development of alternative sources. Whether you believe that mankind is causing global climate change, or if you believe the earth is simply near the top end of it's inter-glacial cycles, the economic facts are indisputable.

Pickens Plan: Importance of electrical infrastructure

2008-08-03T17:17:00.004-05:00

T. Boone Pickens has proposed a plan to produce 20% of the electricity needs of the U.S. from wind energy in 10 years. There is sufficient wind power to do this using existing wind turbine technologies, but there's a catch. The places that are best suited for wind power are not near the existing transmission grid.

Both T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore agree that rebuilding the national electric grid is of the highest importance, and possibly the most difficult to achieve politically. T. Boone's 4000 Megawatt wind farm in the Texas Panhandle is in the boonies (no pun intended), as are many of the other premium sites in the Texas to North Dakota wind corridor. This is among the more remote areas in the nation, most of it 500 miles from the nearest major metropolitan area where the power is needed. Opponents of the Pickens Plan may see this as a reason why not.

There is no doubt that getting the electricity to the market is a big hurdle, but one that must be overcome. A new electric grid is necessary for all forms of alternative energy. Solar energy's prime location is in the Southwest, New Mexico, Arizona, and West Texas. These, too, are far from consumers. Further, no one wants the nuclear plants that McCain is proposing in their backyard either.

A major investment in electric grid infrastructure could enable all of these technologies to function efficiently. It would be like an interstate highway system for electricity. This above all needs national leadership and commitment for us to get started toward ending our foreign oil dependence.

Land Ferries

2008-07-30T11:07:00.002-05:00

I was Victoria, British Columbia recently visiting my brother. One thing about going to Victoria, you quickly get introduced to the BC Ferry system.

What I find most amazing is how quickly the ships can load up a shipful of cars, trucks, busses, and pedestrians and sail off to the other shore. Onboard, drivers and passengers can dine, sight see, lounge, read, etc.

I started thinking, why can't we have that on land? A ferry between major cities on land. Similar to the Auto-train, a land ferry would be rail based. It should be completely loadable in 5 to 10 minutes. If it were double decked, you could load both decks at once. Drivers could get out of their cars, and walk to lounge or dining cars located at strategic points on the trains. With existing technology, point to point land ferries should be able to achieve comparable times to driving the same distance.

Longer term solutions could achieve higher speeds, provide charging stations for electric cars, and improved enroute amenities. Through trains could take travelers coast to coast, with the advantage of having personal transportation available at your destination. A variation of the ferry could provide a rolling campground, for travel trailers, motor homes, and boats.

The key to making such a proposal a success may be the technology and infrastructure to allow rapid loading and unloading. A robotic automatic loader could load an entire train simultaneously, two levels at a time. Other alternatives might just let you drive aboard like you would on the sea-going ferries mentioned earlier.

Feasible? Yes. Practical? Maybe. Marketable? Yes, at the right price point.

No Silver Bullet?

2008-07-30T10:20:00.004-05:00

Is there a Silver Bullet to solve the energy and global warming crisis? Not yet, but maybe some day. Sustainable Hydrogen Fusion might be, but it has remained elusive for decades now.

For now, and until this or some other Silver Bullet solution comes along, we need a comprehensive menu of solutions to address 4 issues:

1. Global warming and pollution as a result of burning carbon fuels
2. Financial impact of being a net importer of fuel resources
3. Exponential growth in energy demand
4. The reality of legacy investments in planes, trains, trucks, and automobiles

I admire Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens challenges and plans. We should work to implement both, as they are not contradictory. But there is much more that will have to be dones as well. I believe both of the proponents of change believe that too. In the recent book, "Earth: The Sequel", authors Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn outline many technologies which can contribute to addressing the four issues I outline above. This book should be required reading for everyone who is in a position to influence our leaders.

All efforts to change the status quo are expensive, but perhaps the most expensive of all in this case is to just try and maintain it.

More on Al Gore's challenge proposal

2008-07-22T13:57:00.002-05:00

Last week I commented on Al Gore's renewable energy challenge. As I listen to the various political nay-sayers describe how unachieveable the idea is, I realize how much they don't get it.

The importance of a national priority challenge is to find a way to get it done!

Nay-sayers say that it would take 10 years are more to just 'agree' to get it done, and clear legal hurdles. Indeed, that is the most critical part of the challenge.

The challenge to 'walk on the moon by the end of the decade' was largely a technical challenge. It was achieved through technical innovation at a rate that would not have been achieved without the goal having been set.

The challenge to achieve 'all electricity through renewable energy' within 10 years is more legal and political. The technical capability largely exists. The innovation required by the challenge is different, but the mandate needs to be the same. Find a way to get it done, and it isn't by continuing 'business as usual'.

On opening the continental shelf to exploration and development

2008-07-20T12:46:00.000-05:00

The views on this one are mainly Republicans = Yes, Democrats = No. Here, I side with the Republicans. Here are some common arguments and my response.

"It will be 10 years before we get the first drop of oil from it"

Jim: Even if it is 10 years, which it probably won't be, it's from when we begin, so let's get started.

"We should drill where there are already leases"

Jim: Geologically, there are places where oil is commonly found, and there other places. Some of the best prospects are not in the current lease areas.

"It could foster an environmental disaster"

Jim: So could the Chinese drilling off the coast of Cuba. We need to be environmentally responsible, use the latest technology, and ensure some funds are diverted directly to National Parks and other environmental budgets.

"We'll end up selling the oil to the Chinese"

Jim: We should have that problem.

Why not trains

2008-07-19T13:59:00.000-05:00

I had the occasion to visit the museum in the old train station in West Yellowstone, Montana a few weeks ago while on vacation. There used to be trains there, bringing early visitors to Yellowstone National Park. Now, no trains. Why?

Trains are the most efficient form of long distance transportation. In preparing for my vacation, I looked into the train alternative as time wasn't much of an issue. I quickly realized trains are a more expensive alternative than airplanes, if you can even get there from here. Why is that, and why is it so? Trains are the most enery efficient form of long distance transportation, so why does it have to cost so much?

Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing. If there were passengers to fill them would there be more trains. If there were more routes, and prices were cheaper, maybe there would be more passengers. If trains were half as fast as airplanes, maybe there would be more passengers.

Maybe we need some high speed trains between major metropolitan areas, with local hubs to more places. Europe has that, Japan has that, why doesn't the US have that? If I could get on a train and go from Dallas to Los Angeles in 12 hours or less, I would probably never fly again unless going over the ocean.

Al Gore's Proposal

2008-07-18T10:20:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, in a major energy speech, Al Gore called for a national goal to generate 100% of our electricity from renewable sources within 10 years. He likened the goal to John Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade (60s).

I am delighted to hear the call, and urge all of my friends to support this worthy goal. It is time for decisive action!This isn't just an environmental goal. As Al Gore, T. Boone Pickens, and others have pointed out, we are bankrupting our country with the outflow of cash for foreign oil.

I do disagree with Mr. Gore on one important point. I believe we should still open our continental shelf for oil exploration. It's not that it can solve our current energy crisis, it's just that there are a lot of things to do with oil besides burn it in cars and trucks.

I also support Sen, McCain's call for additional Nuclear Energy, more as an alternative for steady state electrical power generation.I have previously called for additional investing in rail alternatives, such as high speed electric trains, as alternatives to air travel, which at least for the short term will continue to be powered by fossil fuels.

I plan to buy an electric car when available. Until then I'll have to limit the driving of my gas guzzeling SUV, and probably will never by the class A RV which I have often thought I wanted when I retired.