Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

How T. Boone Pickens' Energy Plan Just Got Killed

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted October 9, 2008.


The new bailout plan passed by Congress may have put the nail in the coffin on Pickens' dangerous energy proposal.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The financial bailout bill passed by Congress may have once and for all put an end to T. Boone Pickens' energy plan. Let me explain.

Until the financial meltdown obliterated all other news coverage, T. Boone and his energy plan were everywhere. His book, The First Billion Is the Hardest, is number two on the bestseller list. During the Republican and Democrat Conventions his press conferences were attended by a fawning media, virtually all of who filed stories with the theme "oil man turns wind energy advocate."

Indeed, even the more than casual reader might come away believing the Pickens Energy Plan was all about wind energy. T. Boone's web site does little to contradict that impression. It displays nothing but wind turbines.

But expanding wind energy is not the key element in his plan. The reason is that that the plan's goal is to reduce our dependence on oil and the electric sector uses very little oil. Thus expanding wind-generated electricity does little to move us in that direction. Instead, the heart of Pickens' plan is to purportedly use increased wind energy to back out the natural gas in our electricity system. Pickens wants to eliminate our use of natural gas to generate electricity and instead use it to in our vehicles.

In California, Pickens has been more upfront about his intentions. The Texas oil and gas billionaire has single handedly financed a ballot initiative that would raise $3 billion for incentives for vehicles using cleaner fuels. The initiative heavily favors natural gas vehicles. The biggest rebates would go toward the purchase of heavy-duty trucks and transit buses fueled by natural gas. Only natural gas vehicles would quality for the largest rebate for passenger vehicles -- $10,000.

The primary beneficiary of this ballot initiative would be Clean Energy, the nation's biggest supplier of natural gas for transportation needs. Mr. Pickens is majority shareholder of Clean Energy.

The Pickens energy proposal has a fatal flaw. Transforming our transportation fleet to natural gas will require massive investments in new engines and new fueling systems. Although largely buried in the fine print, Pickens isn't proposing to use natural gas to entirely replace transportation fuels derived from oil. His goal is a 20 percent replacement. So after 15-20 years and the expenditure of tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars we would then have a transportation system still 80 percent dependent on oil and 20 percent dependent on a fossil fuel whose life expectancy is not much longer than oil's.

A far better plan, and one proposed by a growing number of groups and individuals (including my own, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in a recent report titled Driving Our Way to Energy Independence)is to electrify our transportation system. Instead of converting part of our transportation system to natural gas, only to have to then convert it again to renewable fuels, we should convert the transportation system to electricity, and make that electricity increasingly renewable as solar and wind power expand.

Electric vehicles have important advantages over natural gas (or gasoline) powered cars. They are more efficient. They are quiet. They generate no tailpipe emissions.

Moreover, their combined battery storage capacity could usher in a more democratic energy system where households generate transportation fuel from their rooftop solar array and store it in the vehicles' batteries, and, if needed, use their electric vehicles as backup power plants for their homes.

Unlike natural gas cars, electrified cars also lend themselves to being introduced incrementally. There is no partial natural gas car. On the other hand, there is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the first generation of which will be introduced commercially in 2010. The initial PHEVs might have a limited driving range. As a result, initially electricity might power only 25 to 50 percent of the total miles driven. But as battery performance increases and costs drop, electricity will provide a majority and perhaps even 100 percent of the fuel used. Even at lower percentages, if the backup engine for the PHEV were a flexible fuel engine, then biofuels could replace oil, bringing the total oil displacement above 85 percent.

In June 2007, Senators Obama, Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a bill that would give handsome incentives to manufacturers of electrified cars. After the House of Representatives rejected the initial bailout bill, the Senate added on some $110 billion worth of incentives for a wide range of purposes and industries. The Obama, Hatch, Cantwell bill was one of them. It offers a tax credit of up to $7,500 for electrified vehicles. The incentives phase out after sales of electrified vehicles, either plug in hybrids or all electric cars, reach 250,000 in any calendar quarter.

The passage of that bill will accelerate the already vigorous rush by manufacturers to develop a high performance, long lasting and inexpensive car battery. Companies are working on dozens of configurations and in the last two years progress has been swift. The incentives offered should cover 25-50 percent of the cost of these new car batteries, shaving the payback period for electrified vehicles to under 5 years or less.

The financial meltdown probably has killed Pickens' chances of gaining passage of his natural gas initiative in California. Few voters there will approve putting the state even further in debt. And the passage of the Congressional bailout bill should mark the demise of his overall plan, as electric cars go mainstream, leaving the idea of natural gas cars in the dust.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: energy, natural gas, renewable energy, clean energy, wind energy, t. boone pickens, pickens

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis, Minn., and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Shortsighted.
Posted by: kittynboi on Oct 9, 2008 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this article isn't looking at the whole picture. The Pickens Plan, for all it's fault, DOES promote moving our electricity towards wind based power. The author acts as if this is irrelevant because we get little electricity from oil.

But we do get electricity from COAL, which is much dirtier than oil and probably the single biggest contributor to Co2 emissions on the planet.

Moving us away from coal is just as important as moving us away from oil, and THAT battle is going to take place on the grid, not on the road.

http://incredibleicarus.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forward thinking... Posted by: Wells
Pickens misused wind to window-dress his otherwise sinister fossil fuel and nuclear plans.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 9, 2008 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And you thought oil tycoons reform overnight?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we adopted Picken's plan...
Posted by: NoMcCainPalin on Oct 9, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he would continue laughing all the way to the bank.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay, I get it.
Posted by: bobtr900 on Oct 9, 2008 2:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T. Boone Pickens wants to do for natural gas what he did for his oil companies. He wants to get so many people using natural gas in their vehicles that the demand will increase so much that there will be enormous shortages of it and he and his scum can set the prices of it so it will also skyrocket and people will freeze in the winter and commit suicide (see Ehrenreich's writings) rather than freeze to death or watch their children freeze to death.

But once again that will be okay because the fetus will not be killled, or so he would like us all to believe.

Pickens is a piece of scum, just as the Bush family are scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

from capitalisme to combi world.
Posted by: richholland on Oct 9, 2008 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Great mr.Pickens awakes the alternet commentors who believe the solution is sustainable energy. Bullshit.

The first problem for the USA is the set up of Public AND private combinations of production.

In Asia and Europe soon we have 80/20 =
80% oil/20 ethanol.

If your energy is chickenshit and it is controlled by the McChickencorporation you are still in the shit
The CEO wants a $ 3.000.000 per year
The shareholders want money
and you are still cold and poor.

Americans donot give your responsibility away to profithunters.
Demand the sustainable energy by corporations of three parties;
state/workers/capitalists.
And vote this time OBAMA and start the organisation of a GREEN PARTY soon after that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check Your FACTS...
Posted by: VickyinSD on Oct 9, 2008 4:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I HAVE!!!

The cost to convert existing vehicles to CNG (from what I've researched) is under $1000, and the benefits are GREAT!

Yes... you will lose a little power going up hills when running CNG, so that's the point where you flip the switch over to gasoline instead. However, diesel engines will run even better when the fuel is mixed, from what I've been found out anyway.

The cost for CNG is about 1/2, and the MPG is about twice that of gas. With gas prices fluctuating more than the national economy, I've been trying to figure out a way to convert my vehicle over (on disability income) because I sure can't afford to keep sending my $ overseas!

Personally, I think we should be offering some kind of rebate/incentive to those who choose to convert their vehicles to CNG... and let wind and solar serve our electricity needs wherever possible! I know that the wind blows almost all day where I live, and I'm in So Cal, so the sun shines 99% of the year. But... I can't put a windmill in my yard because of local HOA rules/regulations and bullshit... that REALLY needs to change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check Your FACTS... Posted by: Gettig
PS...
Posted by: VickyinSD on Oct 9, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BP gas, otherwise known as Arco in So Cal, is currently the cheapest gas available in on average... as long as you pay with cash not credit.

I don't see the other oil companies doing ANYTHING for the consumer besides fuck us dry!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prices for energy sources
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour. Is the
sun shining the most when you are cold? Of course not. It is winter because
the days are shorter. Is the wind blowing the most when you are the coldest? I
don't know.]

Wind and solar look like bad bets for keeping you warm in the winter unless you
live in a very unusual place.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take your NUCLEAR power and... Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: Take your NUCLEAR power and... Posted by: counterpoint
» If you want a... Posted by: VickyinSD
» Utter Nonsense Posted by: Jim Shaw
» Muscle power Posted by: Daniel35
Local regulations versus wind power
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 9, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your big troubles will start when your gizmo falls off of
whatever and kills somebody.

Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture."

[No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Compare this to Chernobyl Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Compare this to Chernobyl Posted by: VickyinSD
» In addition... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Chernobyl???? Posted by: gellero1
The Answer You Refuse To Think About
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 9, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are addicted to economic growth because every year there are more people needing more services, so shortages are inevitable. But if we peacefully reduce the human population there will be plenty of resources for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's Time For Peaceful Change. Posted by: Last Chance
» We already have this Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Not Even Close Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Not Even Close Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: We already have this Posted by: Daniel35
» Amen! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: Amen! Posted by: VickyinSD
» The Answer Is -- Posted by: Last Chance
Trading One Monoply for another
Posted by: Phred42 on Oct 9, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is NOT progress.

I've been saying this since day one.

The only permanent solution is decentralized power sources.

Sorry T-Bone - no Monoply

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thais don't know Pickens
Posted by: Jingjohk on Oct 9, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing from Bangkok , Thailand. Over here the majority of the thousands of taxis and buses run on natural gas.Alot of delivery and tractor trailer trucks also run on cng. There are plenty of conversion shops also. There is even a GM manufacturer plant that make the cng dual fuel Chevy Colorado pick up and the Chevy cng Optra passenger car for Thais. The cng Optra costs $1300 U.S. more than the same gasoline model Optra. NGV's are very popular here, emissions are cleaner and fuel is cheaper. And you know what else ? Pickens has nothing to do with it. It seems to me this blog is not as concerned with our environment, energy independence or the welfare of our nation, but people that just can't stand the thought of Pickens making a few extra bucks to leave to charity when he drops dead. I can see prop 10 in California getting shot down because the state can't afford it, but not because people hate billionares.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oil will be around for a long time
Posted by: edgar1 on Oct 9, 2008 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that's what obama and pickens choose not to emphasize. and that's why drilling in north america makes sense. in ten years we will still need plenty of gasoline to power commercial transportation as well as personal cars. natural gas and alternatives will be produced in greater quantity for transportation when and if the price of oil rises beyond what consumers including the trucking industry will pay.

there is no need for any govt subsidy for any form of energy. given the budget deficit explosion, no responsible Congress should vote for fuel (or agriculture or "public" education or healthcare) subsidies anyway, because the subsidies are just fiat, phony printing press money anyway. If people want "services", they now must pay for them out of real savings from real work. Bush, McCain(govt pays people's mortgages?) or Obama Socialism is the road to collapse and fascism.

Boone wants to sell natural gas to auto manufacturers-go ahead JR- its a free country. But not a dime of "public" funny money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excessive wishful thinking
Posted by: GreenRanger on Oct 9, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To suggest that the fate of Proposition 10 in California or the federal bailout will "kill" the Pickens Plan is wishful, misguided thinking on Morris' part. Americans will not embrace electric cars until better technology is developed. Morris also ignores key elements of the Pickens approach -- reducing foreign oil imports by a third over the next decade, reducing carbon emissions by at least 20%, and having a concrete plan that can be implemented in a matter of years not decades. That's why several political leaders, including former energy secretary Bill Richardson, support Pickens. More than 850,000 Americans have signed up to support Pickens and a national bipartsan survey released yesterday indicated that more than 8 in 10 Americans support the Pickens approach. Go, Boone, go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Myth About Nuclear Energy Parading As Truth
Posted by: Liberty G on Oct 9, 2008 7:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having spent some time during 1979-80 as research associate at an organization educating on energy options, I'm sick of the half-truths and lies still being put forth by proponents of nuclear power. Here are some real facts:

1. MONEY: What actually killed nukes years back was, unfortunately, not concern for their risk to people - it was the economics. Despite the spurious statistics generated by profit-seekers, nuclear energy is far too expensive to ever stand on its own financially. Take a careful look at legislation to re-introduce this nightmare to the U.S. Simply, it requires the public to put up the billions of dollars in guarantees that no private financier in his/her right mind would risk.

2. ENVIRONMENT: The financial picture is skewed, as is common with corporatocracy types, by ignoring environmental factors. Nuclear waste must be kept cool during the 100s or thousands of years of storage required by the half-life of its elements. And cooling means energy. Also, it is typical for large nuclear waste sites to leach toxins into nearby soil and water. Witness the Hanford "reservation" - a disaster for the state of Washington and adjacent Oregon, especially the Columbia River.

3. HEALTH: A "perfectly operating" nuclear plant emits low levels of radiation on a daily basis, through air and water. And, there is evidence (heavily suppressed) that workers are experiencing higher rates of cancer and other conditions. A group of demonstrators against the Millstone plant in CT a few years back was heavily populated with such workers. There is even some question as to whether the radioactive emissions there might have some connection with Lyme Disease, as a possible genetic mutation of a less deadly microbe in the waters of Lyme, CT, near Millstone. It is clearly proven that low levels of toxins, including radiation, are more likely to produce mutations and cancer, over a period of years, as opposed to immediate damage.
Add to effects at and near the plant the exposure of workers at other points of the nuclear cycle - mining and fuel processing.

4. HOMELAND SECURITY: There have been problems with security at many nuclear plants, and as long as human beings run them, no total safety can be assured. There is a risk of nuclear material being stolen, among other concerns. In addition, every nuclear production or processing plant built is a natural target for terrorists.

5. ENERGY PRODUCTION: Again, if one takes into account all the stages of production, the picture is very different than the rosy one painted by proponents. Energy is utilized in mining, processing, manufacture and operation.
At least one competent scientist found that little NET ENERGY was actually obtained by the nuclear cycle.

6. THE GREATEST MYTH: Renewable alternatives can't do the job? Balderdash. The truth here is they can't be monopolized by large entities making billions of dollars. Hundreds, if not thousands, of innovations can allow individuals and communities to produce clean, inexpensive energy for themselves. And the last thing the corporatocracy wants is energy independence - from them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PARASITISM IS THE PLAN
Posted by: HANGTRAITORS on Oct 9, 2008 8:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THEY ARE HOLDING THE OIL RESOURCE AND ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE WOULD BE "AGAINST THEIR INTEREST"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Elctromuters
Posted by: solrev on Oct 9, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T bone is a gas man and wants to make money selling his product. He made one mistake and that was using gas in cars. If I were Obama I would push the automotive industry into the electric car business, but I would also mandate that gas generation and wind produce the additional electricity requirements. How about that for a job stimulus package? Solar technology is not there yet. If all are electricity were produced by gas, we would reduce co2 emissions by 50%. Gas plants are also much cheaper than nuclear. We could by the time to find alternative sources. I do not know how to calculate the reduction in pollution which commuter electric traffic would produce, but it must be great. We also have a tremendous supply of methane sitting on the bottom of our oceans. If we could convince China to skip coal and go to gas, we could attain livable pollution levels for the next 1000 years. We could buy the time to create biodiesel for power transportation needs, which could be carbon neutral.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rooftop Solar Arrays?
Posted by: greenPuker on Oct 9, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."households generate transportation fuel from their rooftop solar array and store it in the vehicles' batteries, and, if needed, use their electric vehicles as backup power plants for their homes."

Let's see...So everybody would NOT work... just stay home and charge their car batteries from their rooftop solar array? Cheez.. numnuts! I can't think of a faster way to go broke!

The average household in the United States uses about 8,900 kilowatt-hours of electricity each year. That's over 1 Kilowatt every hour of the day! One 4 foot by 30 foot solar array can generate 700 watts every hour. Close...but no cigar. Gonna need a bigger array and some way to store the electrical energy until PEAK hours AT NIGHT!
You're talkin' big bucks. And what happens if you have a cloudy day?? Uh..oh? Back to the drawing board!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Silly arguments Posted by: PaulC
High school chem
Posted by: q. on Oct 9, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Am I missing something in defining "clean"?
I learned in HS chem :
CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O
While this may be "clean" it still produces CO2!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a relief- I thought I was losing my mind
Posted by: thistleblower on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His stupid ad made no sense at all to me until now. It's all "wind energy, wind energy" and at the very end you hear a blip about "natural gas." WTF? Why did he even bother putting it in there if the thing is a deception?

Tying it in with the debates is brilliant- makes his greed sound like some kind of "energy plan" for the country. So Rovian! Is this the future the republicans would have for us, self-interested pigs like Pickens dictating ACTUAL energy policy? ooo, I think I can hear some neocons ejaculating to the very idea.

Are these clowns for real? Do they really want to turn the US into something along the lines of an unstable third-world dictatorship, with only just enough GNP to support their fat asses? I mean, wouldn't they want a healthy slave force? What about roads and shit for their fat cars? Dumb asses! I guess this Pickens thing is really hitting a nerve with me. I just thought the right wing consisted of greedy morons. Now I actually hate them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read and Listen More Closely
Posted by: websmith on Oct 9, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pickens does not want to convert old vehicles to natural gas. He only wants the new trucks to be run on natural gas. He does not say his plan is the fix. He says it is a bridge to allow us time to get other technology ready. He is envisioning mostly electric cars, but heavy duty trucks will not be run on electricity or other renewables for a long time. He wants solar and wind.

The problem he is facing is that there's and assumption that the government actually wants to stop sending our money out to foreign oil producing countries. If they did, this obvious problem would have been acted on sooner and they would not have almost killed renewable energy credits.

We have to make changes in government if we want this problem to be addressed.

http://ewebsmith.com/self/StandUp.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dockside
Posted by: rtmyth on Oct 9, 2008 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone Pickens is picking boons. One of the scheming wealthy always looking for a subsidy at taxpayer expense. .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about folks without garages
Posted by: chaoslegs on Oct 9, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think David Morris hits this concept right. However, like the digital divide I worry about the inequality that will exist for people without garages.

I have a house and a garage. But before that I lived in an old apartment building with no off street parking. Like David Morris, that apartment is in Minneapolis. In the winter, especially when there was too much snow they banned parking on one side of the street (so fire trucks could make it down the middle). During that time, I would often have to park 2-3 blocks away. How do I park in my plug in car then?

So the folks that have garages will be able to benefit for cheaper transportation, but the rest may be left out of this plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

T. Boone Stronger Than Ever
Posted by: andylew on Oct 9, 2008 2:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T. Boone is hardly done! In fact, today I got an email saying T. Boone had surpassed 1 million online supporters today. Moreover, he has held a meeting with Sarah Palin, and is in the process of arranging a similar meeting with Joe Biden, to discuss his plan for energy independence. Our country's need for wind, and expansion of natural gas infrastructure, has never been greater. Likewise, T. Boone's support has never been stronger.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solutions?
Posted by: BillEastland on Oct 9, 2008 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see:

Oil for transportation--if we just drill, we get enough to impact world prices and reduce foreign dependence for a long enough period of time to develop alternatives at competitive prices. There is no transformation cost.

Natural Gas for transportation--there is tremendous transformation cost in dollars and time. But, we have gobs of natural gas and the operating cost will be much less than oil. In fact this option would literally make us energy independent for a pretty long period of time.

Electrify the transportation system. Keep in mind, if we do this, we must dramatically increase our electric generating capacity, probably by a factor of two or three. This takes time. We will also have to transition to electric cars, which also takes time:

Wind and Solar are far too inefficient for today's market and they will never be a 100% solution.

Natural gas electric plants can still provide a lot of electricity for a very long time because we have a lot of infrastructure and large reserves, but the production cost is much greater than coal or nuclear and its emissions are relatively high, but not nearly as much as coal.

Coal is a low cost solution and virtually unlimited (obviously it is finite, but if we used this we would likely move beyond it with advanced technologies before we make much of a dent in our reserves), would make us virtually energy independent but it has a huge emissions cost we may not want to incur.

Nuclear provides very low cost energy, can be a 100% solution because it is an unlimited supply if we build enough reactors but will take a lot of time to ramp up to the capacity required. It is the lowest emission solution. The only downside is dealing with the waste. To choose this option, we must pass laws to prevent the environazis from using the courts to prevent nuclear development.

Short of new technologies, the above are the options we have. Keep in mind there are other costs involved in the regulatory environment in which we try to encourage or discourage different technologies as opposed to letting the market work things out.

Conclusion:

Under any scenario, we need to buy time right now, so the first step is to drill here and drill now. Even Boone agrees with this. This will buy us a couple of decades of reduced energy dependence and allow us to transition to a different transportation infrastructure.

Nuclear makes the most sense because it gives us all we need at very low cost, makes us energy independent and has the lowest emissions. Surely we can work out the waste disposal issue.

An additional approach would be to spend some effort on developing technologies that resolves the coal emissions problem, which may or may not be possible. But, if it works and does not cost much, coal is a very low-cost, long-term solution that does not have the nuclear waste problem.

If we let natural gas compete in the marketplace, it will still be useful, and efficient, until lower-cost nuclear or coal comes online.

Beyond these, none of the other solutions makes sense. Also, we should address regulatory costs and get rid of everything that is not essential. We must stop groups from using the courts to obstruct progress. And, we should eliminate all incentives except for those related to the policy options we choose, i.e., such as incentives for developing technologies to deal with nuclear waste or reducing coal and natural gas emissions. Otherwise, we should let the market work things out.

Bill Eastland

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More like propaganda Posted by: PaulC
Yikes!
Posted by: H2ICE on Oct 9, 2008 3:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, let's convert all of our trucks out there to run on electricity - an electric vehicle can haul up to 80,000 lbs right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More than that, way more! Posted by: PaulC
RE: Prices for energy sources
Posted by: paulmagillsmith on Oct 9, 2008 3:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why wasn't geothermal mentioned much in these figures? EVERY state in the US has enough reachable geothermal energy beneath it to heat/cool all the homes above ground WITHOUT danger of a radioactive 'accident' that could kill thousands or more.

As they have done in the past when calculating nuclear power costs did they not include the construction costs? How about this, recent reports state that the day Yucca Mountain opens it will already be at capacity. Is the time & cost of immediately having to build another nuclear waste disposal facility included in the calculation?

The cost of uranium ore has doubled in about the past couple years. It, like oil, is a finite resource, and estimates of the number of nuke plants needed to meet the world's CURRENT demand are about 2,000. There are currently about 440, and fuel for even this smaller number is not available, or already becoming scarce. Why invest trillions of dollars & wasted time chasing after power from a FINITE fuel source? "Peak uranium" is every bit as much a reality as "peak oil.

In response to those who say wind & solar are unreliable because they are intermittant, there is a project in the Gulf region, ongoing since the early 1970's that solves the problem. Excess capacity is stored in underground caverns & drained oil wells in the form of compressed air, then used to generate electricity when needed. Kind of a huge storage battery in a way. Also, look for at least three countries within the next two years (India, Australia, France) that will come out with production models of the 'air car' which can be filled fom these same air storage facilities. The exhaust from these is clean breathable air.

Eventually, investing in alternatives instead of throwing billions & trillions at the nuclear industry as we have for almost 60 years, it should be possible to start de-commissioning nuke plants instead of foolishly building more.

Oh, did I mention DOE (Department of Energy) has concluded a study showing the much touted 'containment dome' on newer nuclear reactors CAN be penetrated by a commercial airliner crashing into it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't just electrify rails, automate the system
Posted by: PaulK on Oct 9, 2008 6:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can get the electricity equivalent of 100 miles per gallon.

I favor personal rapid transit (with lots and lots of improvements that I don't see yet).

Above grade transit makes sense. With an above grade system, when two tracks cross they simply cross at different heights, and so we have no stopping at intersections, which helps with MPG. We need a system that's easy to install above existing roads.

An automated system would have no drunk drivers, as close to zero accidents as possible and no commuting stress. Frail, blind and wheelchair-bound people would have good on-demand disability access to a whole city.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on, he has already told us this!
Posted by: Duude on Oct 9, 2008 8:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh come on! Everyone already knew this. Its so obvious if you know a minimal amount about natural gas. Natural gas if somewhat efficient in the process to power turbines to create electricity. I first witnessed an automobile fueled by natural gas in 1978. Pretty clean exhaust, but the miles per tank sucked big time. Its not very efficient at all. Pickens never really cared about wind energy. He knew all along that it was very inefficient. His desire was always to see natural gas replaced as an energy to produce electricity. His reasoning was this would free it up to be used as an energy source for automobiles, regardless of its inefficiency. He hasn't hidden his views about replacing natural gas for electricity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the "Pickens Plan" does and doesn't
Posted by: spacestevie on Oct 12, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author obviously doesn't know very much about CNG and the fueling infrastructure in this country. Its natural because he lives in Minnesota which has no CNG infrastructure.

The history of CNG in this country is spotty at best. While countries such as Iran, Argentina, Pakistan, many European countries and the like are converting vehicles to CNG (which is methane by the way). America, with its Natural Gas resources actually has reduced its ability to produce CNG vehicles.

All of the Detroit Big Three offered CNG vehicles at one time for fleet operators and the government. You can pick up these at government auctions and on EBay and Craigslist for vehicles that have been retired from either and are owned by the general public.

About the time GM killed the electric car, they were killing CNG as well. In 2002 Ford, for example, discontinued its CNG fleet division - much to the consternation of operators which had come to depend upon Ford for CNG Vehicles. (Ford also killed its own pure electric vehicle programs to concentrate on Ethanol and Hybrid). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS3WbXb1baY

The Big Three stopped their production, leaving domestic CNG to conversion companies such as BAF (http://www.baftechnologies.com/afs_cng.htm). Ford was the leader in this niche market, supplying most of these vehicles to the consumer operators. According to the NY Times Ford Produced its last CNG Car in September of 2004. Ford did however, continue to produce Focus CNG cars in Europe which the article characterized as a slap in the face to its domestic customers. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/automobiles/26AUTO.html

The Bush administration has served to kill CNG as a viable alternative by allowing the tax incentives to expire. State and local governments have steeped in with tax incentives to drive down the cost of CNG. Utah, which needs CNG to reduce pollution in the Salt Lake Valley, is the leader in this regard, promoting a tax credit up to $3000 for a newly purchased CNG vehicle of Original Equipment Manufacture.

Honda continues to produce the only domestic CNG car at its Civic plant in Ohio and sells it to the public at select dealers in California, Utah and New York. The Civic GX comes with its own home refueling appliance which allows it to be fueled in the garage from local Natural Gas lines.

A comment was made in the article about fueling infrastructure. There is currently a national distribution system for Natural Gas for the home. Fueling stations are available in many metropolitan areas on the West Coast, New England, Arizona, Utah and the DFW Metro area. At one time it was possible to drive from coast to coast on CNG. (In 1998 Mark Looper, drove his CNG Dodge Van across the US). http://www.altfuels.org/cleannbk.html

There are no real special engines that need to be developed for CNG. The conversion is to put CNG tanks and modifications to the carburetor system and computer, but that is all there is. These vehicles can also be readially converted to compressed Hydrogen when that fueling infrastructure becomes available.

Now, Pickens is slightly self serving as he owns the only large company that distributes CNG in many municipalities. He also recently purchased from Honda America the company which manufacturers the Fuelmaker home CNG refueling appliances. So, essentially he has a monopoly if his plan goes through.

CNG can be a part of an overall energy policy in concert with Bio-fuels, electric, plug-in hybrids, and eventually Fuel Cell cars. An all electric fleet with require an investment in increasing the electric generating infrastructure to accommodate recharging these vehicles. It would tax an already overtaxed electric distribution network. New power plants will have to be built and electric vehicles may be impractical for many.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IN FACT AS PICKENS ADMITS WE WILL TRY EVERYTHING AT THE SAME
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Oct 12, 2008 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
time. Some things are going to fail. Sadly, one of them is compressed natural gas. It is unable to achieve the range necessary to actually go very far. But there are ways to do this. Lets start with the first and simplest.

Compressed natural gas and propane use exactly the same equipment to run an ordinary internal combustion engine. It is essentiall a matter of recalibration to go from one to the other. In my life time I have owned one propane car, a "56 Ford converted, and a natural gas irrigation well. Boone Pickens self interest blinds him to reality. Propane is widely available at most truck stops. The infrastructure is in place now. When Honda offered its CNG car I investigated dual fueling with propane. The only shop I could find that did conversions did propane to pickups. They wanted 5 thousand or so dollars. That is a really hard way to get rich. Nobody would touch converting the Honda. I understood. I considered putting on a vapor system myself. I could have made this work with 1956 technology. Tricking out Honda's computer system to handle propane instead of ethane was one step too far. The moment I did it Honda would disown me.

The idea is still doable. It deserves an honest trial. The other alternative is that natural gas can be steam reformed, Fischer-Tropsche process, into any and all petroleum stocks. This, of course, would include propane.

The average person seems not to know that as we speak Shell of Europe sells one gallon in 20 of its European market diesel as made from natural gas. We can make our diesel oil and our gasoline from natural gas. Boone Pickens didn't seem to want to get into this. We have two problems and they both seem to need to be fixed at the same time. We need energy self-sufficiency and we need loose from carbon.

It would be nice to generate all of our electricity from carbon free sources and soon. I think that we are all ready for NOW but that seems unlikely. What we are going to do is to clean up carbon for a time. That needs to start NOW. It can.

We need to set a goal to make all coal fired plants in the United States coal gas fired and sequestered within a certain time period. in the meantime we can be working on non carbon sources. I think that we all know that the 25 thousand year half life of nuclear waste and contamination is something we need to steer away from for the time being. Humans don't seem able to plan 25 years in the future much less 25 thousand years. If the time comes that we might safely and cheaply drop the waste into the face of the sun, we might reconsider.

The solution to almost all of our energy problems boils down to cheap compact lightweight energy storage. We have had that in a gallon of gasoline. But doing it without carbon just isn't really happening. If any of you guys out there figure it out, don't tell anybody else on earth, come directly to me and tell me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Natural Gas, Wind, Solar - not hot air!
Posted by: JimVanNatta on Oct 13, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to respectfully disagree with the author of this article and many of the comments. News of the death of the Pickens Plan are totally false. In the article it states that we don't see as much from Mr. Pickens. I'm not sure where that is coming from, because I see the commercials more now than before.

Proof of the incredible growth and enthusiasm about this plan can also be seen in the fact that the Pickens Plan is the largest grass-roots effort of any kind in our nation's history. Support for this plan is coming from both sides of the political aisle, unlike any other issue we have seen in modern times.

I have read other articles and blogs where people are upset about tax dollars being used to finance the energy companies. The truth is that proponents of the plan are asking for tax incentives, not tax dollars paid out.

As far as the Pickens Plan itself, people should take a look at it with an open mind at PickensPlan.com and see that it encompasses much more than just wind. Mr. Pickens is advocating an "all in" approach to becoming energy independent. By using all of the resources that are available to us, we CAN make a difference for our environmental, financial, and national security.

We have to ensure that businesses will get the incentives to manufacture and produce alternative energy resources, and that consumers will be given the incentives and motivation to convert their homes, businesses, and vehicles to alternative forms of energy.

Let's not be so fast and ready to ring the death bell. The Pickens Plan is stronger now than before, and gaining tremendous support everyday.

Jim VanNatta
Pickens Plan supporter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Len Kreger
Posted by: lenkreger on Oct 13, 2008 12:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anything the economic crisis will push the Pinkins Plan. The rescue package included extensions of investment credits for wind, geo, and other alternate energy sources.

You seem to miss the point that the Pinkins Plan is only a part of the goal for energy independence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ENOUGH America
Posted by: mjgila1c on Oct 14, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe, Mr. David Morris, you may not understand what the Pickens’ Plan is and what it represents. Your argument against the Plan is not actually against using natural gas for transportation, but for using electric power. T. Boone Pickens’ Plan doesn’t stand in the way other alternatives to foreign oil usage. As he has said many times, “I’m for anything American.”

If you looked closely at the Pickens Plan and the plan you describe Mr. Morris, Driving Our Way to Energy Independence, they actually work well together. The effort to electrifying our transportation system can cover a wide range of vehicles, but can’t provide all our transportation needs. Heavy freight transport, such as large trucks and buses, are far too heavy to be run by any type of battery power. The Pickens’ Plan goal is to transfer those heavier vehicles to natural gas, instead of foreign oil. Also, with the new technology used for Natural Gas Shale digging we have an abundant source of natural gas here and now. So why not work together Mr. Morris, instead of tearing each other down?

Since the financial crises and bailout the Pickens’ Plan membership, “army”, has increased from less then 450,000 to more then 1,151,000 members. The Plan continues to grow at an astonishing rate, which tells me this plan is far from dead or dying!

To me the Pickens Plan represents hope, hope that Americans will once again stand together and say ENOUGH! Enough of our country's financial irresponsibility and shortsighted vision towards foreign oil dependence, we all need to push for change and that we all agree is desperately needed. In order for that change to happen we must work together and not resort to petty attacks on each other. Mr. Morris if you’re truly interested in helping this country, and the environment, then please stop being part of the problem and work with us for a solution, not against us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's talk sense about alternative energy!
Posted by: John0 on Oct 14, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, when the first automobiles where introduced, everyone did not go out and buy a car. It took years. The transition to alternative energy sources will happen. It could take years as well. In fact, we can not remain dependent on forms of energy that will eventually run out or kill us. So, think of Mr. Pickens like a new Henry Ford. And please, no more of the "sinister plan" and conspiracy theorist nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pickens is Practical, not Promising
Posted by: PaulReeder on Oct 14, 2008 8:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stipulated:
1.)The best car battery promised today yields about a 40 mile range
2.)It takes about 6+ hours to re-charge
3.)Each year, the capacity of the battery decreases (Hence a decrease in range)
4.)The battery must be replaced (~6 to 8 years) at a cost of ~ $5000
5.)Vehicles available worldwide: None

6.)Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) have more range
7.)NGVs refuel as quickly as gasoline
8.)NGVs perform well in cold climates. Batteries do not
9.)The NGV storage tank needs inspected every few years
10.)Vehicles available worldwide: about 8 million

The Pickens Plan goal is to reduce our precarious dependence on imported oil. It is based upon proven, doable technology. If the 20% of our electrical generation burning natural gas was reallocated to vehicles, it would replace about 35% of our 385 million gallon per day gasoline consumption.

Mr. Morris contends that we can get the imported oil monkey off our back with PHEVs. He tells us that the first generation will be introduced in 2010. Battery performance will increase as costs drop. Up to 100% of the cars' power will eventually be electricity. Progress in the past two years has been swift. PHEVs combined battery capacity could usher in a democratic system where the solar panels on our roofs, recharging these marvelous cars, will stick it to OPEC. Good Lord, these machines won't be sold in showrooms, they'll be delivered from mountain tops by white bearded prophets. Who wouldn't want one?
Well for starters, me. I don't want to bank my future and our national security on “promises” and “it's just around the corner”. And even if these PHEVs were available today, they would have a negligible effect on our imported oil monkey.
The basic problem is that PHEVs are small, commuter type vehicles. If their estimated 40 mile range is accurate, that means they will go 40 miles before the 6 + hour charge period is required. Further driving requires gasoline or ethanol. Because they are hybrids, they achieve about 40 miles/gallon when running on gasoline. That means that each day, each PHEV saves about 1 gallon of gasoline that is not imported. Personally, I think few people have a 40 mile commute, but for the sake of argument, lets maximize the electric displacement of gasoline. Each PHEV saves a gallon of gasoline/day.

So, to displace 35% of our daily gasoline habit would require 135 million PHEVs. Give or take a few.
But wait, there's more. What if we took all the ethanol from all biorefineries (both operating and under construction) and put that into PHEVs to replace gasoline? That's an additional 28 million gallons/day. So, with ethanol in the mix, we would require only a mere 107 million PHEVs to achieve a comparable Pickens Plan reduction in imported oil. OK, so 107 million Chevy Volts with a $40,000 sticker price (Remember, only 250,000 PHEVs get the $7,500 coupon) and a new $5000 battery in 7 years equals... I dunno, my calculator won't go that high. Perhaps Mr. Morris's energy proposal has a fatal flaw, not Mr. Pickens.
Mr Morris also claims that “transforming our national transportation fleet would require massive investments in new engines and new fueling systems”. I guess those 8 million NGVs are test platforms, not quite ready for prime time. I never realized that the three years I drove my 1996 Ford Contour bi-fuel NGV (Gasoline or natural gas) was an experiment. Apparently so, because Mr. Morris tells us “There is no partial natural gas car.”
Yes Mr. Morris, it will take some investment, but I'd rather invest in a sure thing rather than a promising technology. That is the bottom line . The Pickens Plan is a doable plan based on current technology. And now, not later, we need to do something.


Paul Reeder
Pickens Plan Supporter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me clarify a few things
Posted by: Mike_Johnston on Oct 24, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read your story and saw a few things that are not quite accurate and wanted to correct them.

1) You say of Pickens site that: It displays nothing but wind turbines. If you go to the page you link to you see the background is a picture of wind turbines and at the top of the page on the right side is a blue button which has illustrations of wind, solar and gas along with an outline of the United States.

2) You say: But expanding wind energy is not the key element in his plan. Pickens is putting billions into developing a huge wind farm in Texas...

3) You say: Pickens wants to eliminate our use of natural gas to generate electricity and instead use it to in our vehicles. Ok so we switch to wind to replace natural gas and eventually coal and use the natural gas to replace gasoline. Natural gas pollutes 90% less than gasoline and emits 25% less CO2 to the atmosphere. Is that a bad thing?

4) You say: Transforming our transportation fleet to natural gas will require massive investments in new engines and new fueling systems. Converting existing vehicles to natural gas or dual fuel does not require a new engine just a conversion of the fuel system. Such conversions can be had for several thousand dollars and there are federal clean fuel credits in place to help out with the cost.

5) You say: We should convert the transportation system to electricity. Now this plan would require billions of dollars in investment because existing vehicles cannot be easily converted to electricity without replacing the engine and modifying all systems that run directly off the engine such as heat and air conditioning. In addition electric vehicles have fairly limited range and there are no electric heavy, over the road trucks available to replace our dirty diesels. Diesels are the primary market that Boone advocates changing over to natural gas.

6) You say: There is no partial natural gas car. This is also totally untrue. There are many vehicles that can run on either gasoline, diesel or natural gas or even a combination of them in some cases.

Diesel dual fuel link

Gasoline dual fuel link

Pinning you hopes on replacing every vehicle in America with electric cars, provided that the technology eventually becomes available, is not a realistic alternative to the Plan that Mr. Pickens is advancing for the present. Pickens has nothing against electric vehicles or any other form of clean energy but his plan involves things we CAN do NOW not "someday".

Oh, and his bestseller? He is donating all the profits from that to Veterans groups.

Please be realistic when you write and try to research enough to know the truth before you put it in print.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pickens Plan not dead!!
Posted by: theDoctor912 on Oct 25, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conversion to CNG is not a fatal flaw. The technology is here. 8 Million vehicles worldwide run on CNG...just not in the USA. Electric is not ready yet. It cannot go the distances or do the heavy work of CNG. Pickens is promoting a rapid migration of Trucks and Gov't vehicles; no massive re-tooling or investment required...just all new vehicles and convert certain fleets. Even if we had the tehnology to convert to Electrical now...what sources would generate that power? It would be the same fossil based and nuclear fuels we have now. We need the Wind and solar and NG is too good of a fuel to waste on power generation. It is a great transportation fuel NOW, it is cheap, and it is domestic. We'll eventually get to electric...the technology just needs to progress further. The faster the better. In the mean time, we need the NG to get off of foreign oil as fast as possible. The economy, the bailout, the elections, is simply a temporary diversion. Someone rolled out the "blue ball" and the easily distracted are now chasing that ball. In reality the economy will be fixed by a) getting off foreign oil, and b)developing the $350 Billion industry annually in Wind and CNG heavy trucks. Why is it every time a guy might make a few bucks...the scarcity mentality comes out. What...if Boone Pickens makes money, that must mean he's taking it from me? He's got all he needs already..he is not in this for the money. He is in it as a patriot and an American. When he dies, he ain't taking all the money with him....he's leaving it here. And more importantly; he'll leave an America with a future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement