T. Boone Pickens efforts to convince the political leadership to invest heavily in a fundamentally flawed energy concept continue to move apace.
Pickens' $10s (likely over $100 million now) of millions expended on advertising, web sites, and otherwise promote a superficially appealing concept:
So simplistically appealing, with a clarity of purpose put forward by this old oil man in such a compelling manner.
The Pickens Plan has many problems, many flaws, but at the core the worst of all might best be referred to as the Peabody-Pickens Axis for Perpetuating Pollution.
When considering the Pickens Plan, the image that might strike most is wizened T Boone Pickens speaking simply and directly as wind turbines turn in the background. This old oil man speaking the praises of renewable energy. So refreshing, so appealing. Willing to say, directly, that "this is one problem that we can't drill our way out of." Are we surprised that prominent Democratic Party leaders have met with and, seemingly, embraced die-hard Republican Pickens with open arms?
The wind turbines might be the most striking image for most, but not me. A very simple pie chart provides, for me, the stark summary of The Pickens' Plan and why, fundamentally, T. Boone's concepts are so dangerous at their core. [NOTE: due to copyright concerns, image not provided her but can be found at The Pickens' Plan website.]
It is a very simple pie chart entitled "US sources of electrical generation" with four wedges
Remember, the basic concept of the "Plan": use wind power to displace natural gas from the electrical grid and then use that natural gas to displace imported oil.
The problem?
That 50%.
The 50 percent of electricity coming from 
coal-fired electricity remains untouched in Pickens' concept. Put aside the issues of the huge fiscal cost of putting in equipment for concentrated natural gas (CNG) transportation (and it is a high figure, both for vehicles and refueling stations) and the high opportunity costs that ensue from spending the money on CNG rather than on better long-term solutions. Put aside how natural gas is a fossil fuel, like oil, and we are simply shifting transportation from one limited in reserves and polluting fossil fuel to another limited in reserves and (albeit less) polluting fossil fuel. Put aside all the other uses for natural gas that have higher value than moving around SUVs (heating homes, making fertilizer, industrial processes). Putting aside all so many other issues, I return to that 50 percent.
Pickens says that Global Warming is secondary to him, but that adopting his plan will move the nation forward on the Global Warming agenda. That 50% puts the lie to his claims. We cannot make meaningful steps forward in mitigating climate change without radically cutting our (and convincing others to radically cut their) coal usage, mainly for electricity.
What T. Boone offers is an illusion of achieving progress, while lining his pocket (and his allies' pockets), while setting a path that would dig our hole(s) even deeper.
In the end, what does that 50% suggest about The Pickens Plan: that the hidden, strongest ally for The Pickens Plan might actually be the coal industry and coal industry giants like Peabody.
Thus, the Peabody-Pickens Axis for Perpetuating Pollution.
Brief selection of blogosphere discussions of The Pickens Plan
Also, while my blood flows dark green, I understand that the world cannot change overnight, it will take guys like Pickens (and his money) to start the ball rolling towards a renewable future, once they get started and make some money guys like pickens will be converted and understand that there are better ways to make electricity than Coal.
This article is just as flawed as the Pickens plan, with or without pickens Coals days are numbered technology will displace it if we survive long enough... But this article makes it sound like the only problem we face is climate change, it ignores peak oil, it ignores national energy security, it ignores the fact that there isn't a renewable energy silver bullet, sometimes guys like pickens are necessary.
He is advocating natural gas for long-haul, heavy duty trucks, and the develpment of alternative (in this case wind) energy sources. He understands that cars need to be weened off of gasoline.
His plan is a stepping stone on the path to a better energy policy. It makes sense to me.
No plan is perfect, but we need to start moving in the right direction. Using natural gas for long haul trucks is already being done by some trucking companies on an experimental basis, such as UPS, and it works. On their trucks, the "deisel" engines are set up to work on either natural gas or traditional deisel fuel. If the truck runs out of natural gas, the driver flips over to deisel fuel, and keeps going. Natural gas is cleaner than deisel fuel, and there is a lot of it in the U.S. Using it for trucks is better for both the economy and for the atmosphere than using deisel only.
Will Pickens' plan solve all of our energy problems? No.
Will his plan help move us in the right direction? Absolutely.
I was very disappointed to hear of Pickens' involvement in the 2004 election on the side of Dubya, but I have yet to see an argument criticising his suggestions regarding the energy system in this country that makes sense to me.
"The American commons comprises a wide range of shared assets and forms of community governance. Some are tangible, while others are more abstract, political, and cultural. The tangible assets of the commons include the vast quantities of oil, minerals, timber, grasslands, and other natural resources on public lands, as well as the broadcast airwaves and such public facilities as parks, stadiums, and civic institutions. The government is the trustee and steward of such resources, but "the people" are the real owners."
http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html
1. "Precedence over every other goal ..." Well, I (and not I alone) work strenuously for win-win-win solutions. For example, energy efficiency investments will create jobs, reduce overall societal costs, and help on the global warming front. Renewable energy creates more jobs per kwh than fossil fuel energy and reducing coal / petroleum use will have many positive health impacts while also helping on global warming front. Don't create a false strawman ...
2. Do you, in any way, understand the potential implications of "a few degrees" of changed average temperature around the globe?
3. Only a fool doesn't seek to understand system-of-system implications. There is no power sources, that I'm aware of, that doesn't have some negative characteristic / implication. But, there is a balancing of positive / negative / risk / benefit to this consideration.
You are putting out false strawman constrasts to distort the discussion ...
Question: haven't seen anything on whether Coal River wind type scenario would work in Wise to end MTR and provide better economic prospects, in the near and long term, for the local community. Know of anything?
I agree. But he's no fool. The plan is basically good, we just need to solve it's problems.
Rooftop Solar modified versions of Picken's plan that will work:
1. Massive rooftop solar installations, starting with larger commercial roofs, ala Nanosolar.
in the sunniest areas first, which will free up natural gas used for air conditioning peak load.
At least a trillion dollar worth. (WWII was 5T$)
2. Offshore and rural wind turbines
3. roof top micro wind.
4. plug in hybrid cars
5. natural gas 1000$ truck conversions.
6. Phase out coal plants first: this alone stops global warming.
7. phase out nukes. More nuclear power = more mushrooms clouds via proliferation: India, Korean...
8. backup the solar and wind with the same natural gas generators we used to use for air conditioning peak load. NG generators are the cheapest to install, and respond quickly to load changes.
9. burn up all the large deposits of natural gas to prevent another methane extinction.
10. phase out natural gas, replacing it with green generated hydrogen.
11. use oil for aircraft fuels, phase into fisher tropes diesel. Possibly hydrogen.
12. make efficiency upgrades constantly.
13. Install distributed natural gas/hydrogen co-generators for 95% efficiency Heat plus Electricity
These can happen mostly at the same time over the next 5-10 years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
1. I agree that Pickens is no fool.
2. I agree that the plan is fundamentally good ... for T Boone Pickens but not for the nation nor for the challenges of climate change.
3. Agree with some of your points, uncertain on some, disagree with many, and wonder at missing elements. (For example, among everything else going on, I don't see a viable case for retiring existing nuclear power plants as long as coal plants are still in the grid ...)
Out nukes are aging, we will have to decommission them soon.
And, while I'm not going to stand up and celebrate the stimulus plan and its entire structure, to call it "$787 billion [of] pork" is to horribly misrepresent it.
RE natural gas: we are looking, as a nation, to creating significant LNG terminals to increase, dramatically, US imports of natural gas. Hmmm ... what does that truly say about the abundance of natural gas?
See, somewhat dated but still better than The Pickens Plan, Energize America: www.ea2020.org.
On a path re the stimulus, see: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/01/01/stimulate-me/ and http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/01/14/a-w4-solution-insulate-us-from-economic-and-climate-devastation/
On eliminating coal from the electrical grid: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2008/10/22/how-america-can-break-its-coal-addiction-or-no-coal-isn’t-necessary/
Etc ... etc ...
Take an exercise machine that simulates climbing stairs, and re-design it so that it pumps air with every stroke. The air is directed into storage tank. A 10 minute work-out results in an extremely powerful store of compressed air. The controlled release of it activates a high-speed flywheel/generator and keeps it spinning for a period of time. The electricity produced can be stored in batteries for use when needed,
and/or connected to an electric meter to make it run backwards.
The manufacture and installation of such a system for the homes of people who are already exercising, would create a huge economy, eliminate the need for more coal-fired generating plants, and eventually reduce greenhouse gases.
Every home should have one.
You'd struggle to keep a 40w lighbulb lit for 30 minutes.
You need to learn some basic physics, and not write something that is arrant nonsense.
1. The nation must have a comrehensive and well thought out energy policy and plan. To date, they do not exist, nor is there anything close to what is needed on the government's drawing board. The clean energy initiatives contained in the recently approved "economic stimulus package" are, largely, a step in the right direction but its provisions do not come close to the requisite comprehensiveness.
2. Fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources are the enemy of a clean energy future, period. The sanest, safest and, in the long run, cheapest energy alternatives will be the clean and renewable sources, and all that can be done to maximize their development and implementation to the exclusion of fossil fuels and nuclear is the best course.
3. The human element will always be the weakest link in any such endeavor and should always be suspect. The potential for greed, corruption and other negative influence must be thoroughly considered and explored in any proposed alternative. In particular, the motivation and input of individuals and entities associated, directly or indirectly, with the fossil fuel and nuclear industries must always be subjected to thorough analysis and assigned appropriate credibility.
To replace coal we'd need 8,000 2 Giga Watt nuclear power stations worldwide. 4,000 in the US.
1. We don't have enough unranium.
2. When we are done with the power stations, we'd need to build another 8,000. There are not enough sites for power stations.
3. How to dispose of this much nuclear waste?
I agree that fossil fuel technology needs to be obviated, but given the vast amounts of energy that they currently provide I don't see how you can deem clean and renewable sources (presumably solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.) to be the "sanest" alternative. Safest? Sure. Cheaper in the long run? I can buy that, certainly. But there's simply no way to get as much energy out of those cleaner, renewable sources as we can from fossil fuels or nuclear.
Given the need to replace fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, with alternative energy sources that can accommodate even a conservative, scaled-back portion of our energy needs in the immediate future, nuclear technology should be given greater consideration as a viable solution.
We concur on the matter of fossil fuels. You also seem to feel that nuclear is undesirable but believe it may be necessary for the "immediate future". The question, then, is whether there is a non-nuclear alternative to get us through that short run.
The truth is that we consume energy as we do because it is relatively inexpensive and available, and because we are irresponsible. My thesis is that, with the right approach, we simply wouldn't need the vast amounts of energy you're concerned about.
We typically and significantly underestimate the extent to which even current technologies, applied wisely in conjunction with a sound and broadly applied conservation effort, could save energy and improve our lives. To date, we have not come even remotely close to trying such an approach.
Furhter, with a near immediate and very aggressive implementation of a wise and comprehensive energy policy and plan, there would be an explosion in the development of new technologies, and patterns of energy conservation and consumption would be altered dramatically, with inestimable positive results.
Why not give this concept a genuine effort? If it helps keep that nuclear genie in its bottle, aren't we all better off?
very late in life,
that making more piles of money
isn't the point...
---