Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted August 21, 2008.


The controversial oil magnate has made headlines for a supposed conversion to cleaner energy, but there's ample reason to be suspicious.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"If you are going out of business, you don't go down with the ship, you get another ship. For us, it's natural gas." -- T. Boone Pickens, "Becoming a Billionaire"

You can't always get what you want, the Rolling Stones counseled. But if you try sometimes, you get what you need. Factor billions of dollars, questionable loyalties and a privatization rap sheet invested more in profit than people into the equation, and you usually can get both what you want and what you need. In the case of hyper-loaded oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.

In July, the oil magnate unveiled a well-publicized campaign, the Pickens Plan, which begins with an obvious premise: "America is addicted to foreign oil." Pickens' proposal to kick the habit is straightforward and simple: "Building new wind-generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years."

Sounds fair enough, especially given that Pickens and climate-crisis herald Al Gore have melded minds on the issue. But not hard enough, which is where the cracks in the Pickens Plan begin. "(Gore) asked if we could we join together and do something," Pickens explained to Bloomberg News. "I told him no, because global warming is on page two for me. Page one is foreign oil.''

That page seems to be recently written. As previously noted on either side of the red-blue divide, Pickens has funneled millions into 527s like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, helping derail John Kerry's bid for the White House in 2004. He simultaneously committed hundreds of thousands on top of that to the election and inauguration of both Bush administrations, both spearheaded by fossil fools whose kinship with foreign oil producers not only launched an invasion into an oil-rich but nevertheless sovereign nation, but also nearly tripled the price of oil in seven years and handed campaign contributors like Exxon the most bloated earnings in corporate history.

Sure, Pickens eventually decided to stop funding political campaigns, but that deathbed conversion happened the same July that the Pickens Plan ramped up its nearly $60 million media blitz.

It gets worse. Pickens is currently the head of BP Capital Management, a secretive hedge fund (aren't they all?) that has extensive connections to the magnate's hated "foreign oil" interests. The most glaring example from its investment portfolio is Halliburton, which was once run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is currently headquartered not in America but Dubai, and whose main business segments and subsidiaries involve oil exploration, construction, production and refining. And that's not mentioning its resume on rampant fraud and corruption, especially in Iraq but also elsewhere, which has so far cost American taxpayers billions.

But Halliburton isn't the only BP Cap holding that stinks. Pickens is also heavily invested in Schlumberger, the world's largest oil services corporation; nuclear and conventional energy powerhouse Shaw Group; the embattled ex-Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root and so on. For a very rich man who decries the influence foreign oil has on American life, Pickens sure hasn't put his money where his mouth is. He's put his money where the oil is.

"Even under the Pickens Plan," explains Treehugger's Matthew McDermott, "the U.S. will be importing a significant amount of oil. It's a step toward energy independence in that it expands renewable energy production, but I think framing this debate in terms of energy independence isn't the way to go. If you want to take a populist angle on this, pushing the very real benefits that wind power and renewables in general can have in local economies stands on much more solid ground."

If Pickens were a populist, that might be true. But he's not; he's a stone-cold capitalist whose taste for profit outweighs his desire for the common good. Pickens may have spent $3 billion on wind farms to generate enough electricity to take the load off natural gas, which is currently used to heat homes and more, but only so that it can be used for cars and trucks.

Those are the shells being moved around in this particular game. But shuffling responsibilities and resources will do nothing to forestall our dystopian environmental future, unless those resources burn clean. And what the Pickens Plan does not mention is that the oil tycoon has been deeply invested in natural gas for decades. If the entire American fleet were to switch over to natural gas, the air would possibly (but not probably) be around 30 percent cleaner in a decade, but Pickens would be richer in much higher percentages. And while the air would only stay cleaner for a short while, Pickens would stay loaded beyond the grave.

"Pickens has stated on numerous occasions that, of course, he's going to make money off the Pickens Plan," adds McDermott. "That's the nature of what he does and has done. But natural gas is probably better used to generate electricity than as a fuel source in cars. A better solution is electrically powered vehicles. While there are still technical issues, if our transportation fleet was all-electric, you could power it from whatever is the most regionally appropriate way of generating electricity cleanly and cheaply. As our ability to generate clean power improves, there would be theoretically no need to change the transportation fleet."

It's much simpler than that, argues Food and Water Watch's Wenonah Hauter. "Gas is not the solution for the future, no matter how the gas industry tries to portray it."

The biggest stain on the Pickens Plan is its architect's distasteful history of water privatization. According to Hauter, it is probably the biggest reason, more than all the aforementioned, not to trust him.

"With the water crisis looming in the future and his track record on selling water regardless of the environmental cost," she asserts, "Pickens will be viewed in the future as irresponsible. His background on promoting renewable energy can't erase his current disregard for the sustainable use of water. He recently supplemented his property holdings in Texas with 200,000 acres of land atop the Ogallala Aquifer. Under Texas law, this purchase entitles Mesa Water, Pickens' new company, to take more than 320,000 acre-feet of water, equivalent to more than 104 million gallons, from the property. The Ogallala is already severely depleted, and it's outrageous that he can stick a pipe in the ground and suck this water out without any environmental impact assessment."

Pickens has used all manner of stratagems to obtain rights to what is not a recreational, but an essential, resource for supporting life on the planet. He has spent more than $100 million to acquire water from outlying areas in Texas to sell to its metropolitan hubs, and although he hasn't yet found a buyer, it's only a matter of time. Blue gold is the new black gold, and it won't be long until the world is thirsty from one end to the other. Using his wind investment to fuel his water privatization has only made things worse.

"Pickens used the enormous wind farm erected on his property as a means to lobby for the right to pipe the Ogallala water to a major metropolitan center," Hauter adds. "He successfully passed a bill through the Texas Legislature to allow a water-supply district to transport alternative energy and water in a single corridor. Pickens also successfully loosened the legal definitions of a water district, allowing him to invoke the right of eminent domain so that he could build the pipeline through the property of several neighboring landowners. We should be concerned with these types of underhanded business dealings."

We should be concerned everywhere they occur, one might add, not just in Texas. That means putting aside the media buzz and fawning articles and seeing the Pickens Plan for what it is: a resource power grab for a post-oil oil tycoon. Natural gas will not save us from environmental catastrophe, nor will it wean us off foreign oil. Wind farms are a great start, but they deserve to be more than leadoff pitchers for natural gas, whose implementation into our fleet will do nothing to kick-start the massive emissions reductions we are going to need. Everything from oceanic dead zones and bizarre storms to desertification and societal collapse are on the burner. And we need to cool it down, rather than heat it up.

In the end, the Pickens Plan will not make that happen, no matter what kind of deathbed conversion T. Boone Pickens is experiencing.

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

See more stories tagged with: oil, natural gas, wind, water privatization, t. boone pickens

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

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:
Boone's Boondoggle ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Aug 21, 2008 1:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone's got it half right. The other half is pure greed that will cost America dearly.

Boone Pickens is trying his damnedest to fuel our transportation system with nat gas. He well knows that we will need trillions of dollars to convert cars and trucks and the fuel delivery system to natural gas.

Boone knows that if we go to an electrified transportation system that renewable energy will compete directly with his fossil fuel investments, especially natural gas.

Using nat gas for transportation is a dangerous and costly diversion from the real solution to our electric energy and transportation future.

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

» 18 Wheelers Plugged In? Posted by: edgar1
» Stick to playing world of warcraft Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» Nope, Rail transport. Posted by: plantsareneat
» Boone's snake oil... Posted by: Wells
Another Texas pariah
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 21, 2008 1:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Texans, oil, filthy luchre and its evangelical deification. This clown is Texas bullshit in spades and just another profiteer working a three card Monty game among oil scumbags. Does anyone need another round in the mouth colloquial dipshit in this era? Nope.

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

» Don't Mess With Texas Posted by: edgar1
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» RE: Don't Mess With Texas Posted by: Jayzer
Waiting for the other rightwing shoe to drop.
Posted by: HughScott on Aug 21, 2008 2:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep waiting for Pickens, who financed the swiftboat campaign against John Kerry in 2004, to end his next commercial with "Vote for John McCain."

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

» RE: Time To say Goodnight, Edgar Posted by: Moore Hognutz
» nancy pelosi is a major contributor Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
Balance Needed, As Is Oil For A Significantly Longer Time
Posted by: edgar1 on Aug 21, 2008 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Even under the Pickens Plan," explains Treehugger's Matthew McDermott, "the U.S. will be importing a significant amount of oil."

Under ANY rational plan, including Pickens', oil will continue to play an important part in the US economy. Drilling here and continued imports will be needed. The US will find willing sellers of oil and the confirmation of recoverable reserves offshore will impact the market long before a single barrel hits the refineries, ignorant would be economists like Pelosi notwithstanding.

Invasion of foreign nations isn't needed to persuade producers to put product on the market. Sadaam Hussein was a businessman, and his large oil reserves could have been developed with US, French and Russian help without the bipartisan-supported invasion.

And oil prices as a result of all-out Iraqi production would have been lower.


A balanced, realistic energy program is needed, including drilling offshore to open up US reserves that are at least the recoverable size of Venezuela's, if not more.

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

Drag out another OLD Reptilian Fossil Pusher Man!
Posted by: williameon on Aug 21, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What ever comes out of Picken's mouths is a lie and
You can bet on it!
Big Oil is pumping Millions into McPain's Camp-pain.
The FAUX MEDIA and Corpirate internet shills are
Rovien Poster Children.
Endless Relentless Propaganda.
It is turning BLACK!
The worm turns ugly again.
When will these old FARTS/Fossils retire to their Mansions and leave us alone?
In their GREED driven LIMOS!
The Corpirate Plague continues.
Same A-s holes!
Same channel.
All for ME and NONE for YOU!
Except the Bills of course.
Millions of Millions up in smoke.
No Health Care ,
No Elderly care, Jobs or Houses.
But!
We got WAR:
Mercenaries, Spies, Lies, Snooks, Crooks, Treason, Cowards, Hypocrites, Shills, Pills and various other
Losers.
The money leader owns the temple.
Bend over Father:
Bless you!

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

» RE:Lighten up, amigo! Posted by: greenman
Funny
Posted by: Rolomax on Aug 21, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is funny how everyone misses the point.

Sure, Pickens is an oil magnate. Whatever. Maybe he feels guilty about what he did? Ok.

That's all there is to it. Really. The dude's hands are washed every time SUV discounts are shown on TV and when suckers buy them up.

Who has a TV? Who watches mainstream media? The sucker does both. That really is all there is to it.

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

controversial oil magnate
Posted by: bitsfick on Aug 21, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You people need a vocabulary lesson, the word is maggot, not magnate.

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

you are way over the top
Posted by: davescott on Aug 21, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T Boone Pickens is spending $58 million of his own money to promote a massive federal investemnt in wind power development. We are facing a climate catastrophe, and it is urgent that the wind power Pickens is promoting be brought on line at a large scale. Period.

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

» If it needs to be Subsided Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: you are way over the top Posted by: Quannah
» RE: you are way over the top Posted by: chobiewan
Deathbed Conversion
Posted by: ozonehole on Aug 21, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure that Pickins will always be motivated first and foremost by anything that can stuff more money into his bulging pockets. Like most of the geriatric super-rich, he thinks that he can take his money with him. Surely Satan can be bribed just like the US Congress, right?

That having been said, in corporate-owned America, unholy alliances are sometimes the only way progressives can get anything done. So if we want the minimum wage raised, for example, we've got to attach a rider to a bill funding the Iraq War.

So what I'm saying is that we shake Pickins slimy hand and see if we can at least get wind power deployed on a wide scale. It's not the ultimate answer, but whatever bone the corporatists can be persuaded to throw to us, it's the best we can hope for. That's how far down the toilet America has gone.

Who knows, maybe as Pickins becomes even older and more demented, we can get him on board for solar, electric cars, and improved rail service. One can always hope.

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

» RE: Deathbed Conversion Posted by: Qilpole
» RE: Deathbed Conversion Posted by: orwellturns
» Neither...nor... Posted by: JakobFabian01
» RE: Oh, please... Posted by: greenman
fully electric
Posted by: lclark on Aug 21, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While everything said in the article may be true, the value of the plan getting exposure is that the ability of wind to provide a substantial part of our electrical needs will no longer be allowed to be presented as fanciful. So we can go from there.........and ignore his trust to replace oil with natural gas and simply replace it with electricity. So much of the oil imported is used for personal transportation and for the generation of heat.
What would be transformative would be to :
1).produce abundant and cheap electricity with a revised electrical grid that would allow the efficient transport of that electricity from where generated to where needed, and require that the materials and manufactured be American sources...steel and wind turbines. That would generate jobs and a revitilized manufacturing base that employs many with good pay.
2). use existing infastructure to convert national freight and mass transit to electrical based transportation.
3). require the auto manufacturers to provide fully ( low end) plug in electrical vehicles for personal transportation and regional freight, if they are going to be allowed to continue to sell gasoline based cars.( Ev's have been viable since the '70's.)
4). Same thing with furnaces that heat water to provide home heating.. require electrical based furnaces for heating water...that would allow simple and efficient conversion to electricity for heating purposes in the northeast and midwest where heating fuel is used.
Just as we used to undertake public works in the national interest, if we used renewable energy sources to produce abundant electricity as well as converted to electricity as the source of heating and transportation we would:
- eliminate dependence on oil imports
- eliminate trade deficits
- revitilize our manufacturing base and generate new industries
- produce abundant jobs required to manufacture, engineer, deploy, and maintain this system

What we don't need is:
- nuclear power. Pools of radioactive waste still remain.
- replacement of dependance on oil with dependence on natural gas. That perpetuates the 'hand on the spigot' mechanism that allows a few to control the many. Wind turbines deconstruct that control mechanism and decentralize energy production.

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

» What about Makeup? Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» RE: fully electric Posted by: Carol Burns
» RE: fully electric Posted by: lclark
Get Rid of the Internal Combustion Engine in Automobiles --Period!
Posted by: pinnacle on Aug 21, 2008 5:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this article is talking about the wrong things!. Finally there are two recognizable names attached to voices calling for alternative energy --- Pickens and Gore. Maybe the people in this country will begin to listen. The gasoline powered internal combustion engine used in our vehicles for over 100 years has to go!. It's as simple as that! And, by the way, who should really give a damn if Pickens has oil and gas interests. The part of his message that should be heard loud and clear is that we must break our dependence on foreign oil. Forget the price of oil. If the bastards shut off the spigot it doesn't matter what the price is. Remember the early 70's.

Certainly we will come up with alternatives to using natural gas to fuel automobiles. What? I don't know. We just got started --- about 30 years late. Anyhow there will always be a use for all the oil that we and anybody else can produce so who gives a damn if Pickens makes some more money. The point is that he is out front shouting for this nation to do something. That's called leadership and it's what the President and other politicians should be doing. Instead of questioning the man's motive the author of this article should be cheering the fact that he's doing something to get us off our ignorant rear ends!

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

Vote what is it good for
Posted by: solrev on Aug 21, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until we the people institute a government to secure the entitlements of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, Pickens will pick your pocket. We need a national energy policy that makes sense and there is no way to get that from the people you vote for. The 1% of the population that has 20% of the wealth is against foreign oil because that is their money going to foreign countries. Everything was cool until those foreigners started nationalizing their oil industries. To make matters worst those foreigners have the gull to threaten to change oil dollars to oil euros. We have a lot of major problems and we do not have the resources to solve them all at the same time. Pollution both co2 and particle can cause a 50% decline in the population in a heartbeat. Wind is the best replacement for coal generated electricity and that should be our moon base alpha project. Solve that and we can buy time to solve our oil problem. Unfortunately the people you are going to vote for will sprinkle money around to the masters and continue to fiddle while the first trumpet plays on. PS spare me the nuke scenario. Obama does not like nukes because like me he is from Illinois, and we are setting on a 1000 tons of nuclear waste now. Talk about a Yuccy Mountain. We can only use nukes as a back up but not a primary source.

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

Former Republican
Posted by: johnchase34 on Aug 21, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article about TBoone has too much dissing ad hominem; and too much guilt by association, too much bitching about his motives and because his solution is not perfect.

I'd like to see some thoughtful alternatives to get out of this fossil fuel hole we -- yes, all of us -- have dug ourselves into.

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

» RE: Former Republican Posted by: peaceworker
» RE: Former Republican Posted by: Marshalldoc
» RE: Former Republican Posted by: greenman
Someone NEEDS to get this article to Ed Schultz
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fat bastard seems incapable of seeing through TBone's game.

Either that or Big Eddy has a piece of this pie.

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

» Ed Schuitz sucks up to the corn lobby Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
"Addicted to foreign oil" is NOT an obvious premise, unless heroin addiction is only a problem if. .
Posted by: Beck on Aug 21, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . .the heroin is foreign, not domestic.

Here's yet another phrase that's in the common usage and even liberals have bought into. An addiction is an addiction. The location of the source isn't important, especially as any new oil extracted here will probably be sold overseas, despite McCain and trolls acting as though it's the only solution to our problem.

I guess if the addicts are running low on our fixes, a new supply needs to be found. But the addicts are still addicts. Maybe the pushers here seem easier to deal with? They're no more honest, we should acknowledge.

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

Truth About The Pickens Plan
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also - Here's a 2 min video (with 1 min of info) on subject - worth watching

Truth About The Pickens Plan

video

Trading one Monopoly for another is NOT an answer. It's time to DECENTRALIZE source

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

Maybe honest business dealings are vital to avoiding global warming
Posted by: PaulK on Aug 21, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author's fear is that T. Boone Pickens has every reason to betray the environmental movement as soon as he gets what he wants, which involves profits. Maybe business as usual is the problem.

In other countries they look for, and do business with, good corporate citizens.

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

Pickens
Posted by: GreyFoxThree on Aug 21, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL, for people like Pickens, "Profit" is all that matters. Everything else is a moot point.

JM
Ultimate Anonymity

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

Here's More - Draining a major Aqufier
Posted by: Phred42 on Aug 21, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beyond Wind Plan, Pickens Eyes Pipelines in Drought-Ridden U.S.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html

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

What does this Big Oil greenwashing scumbag say about HEMP 4 FUEL?
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 21, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me guess. Unless he can privatize it in TX, he will not support it or like wind energy, he'll just misuse it as a window dressing. Like Algore, Pickens is nothing but a FRAUD. He's for more oil and gas drilling, coal mining, nuclear reactors, and even importing fossil fuels despite his claiming to oppose it. Also, in addition to his no show on hemp if he really cares about the need to reduce dependence on foreign oil, why is he totally silent on the need to BADLY improve the public transportation infrastructure ?

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

Always Critical
Posted by: Godfather89 on Aug 21, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love America and what it stands for, but I am always critical of privatizing water supplies and other resources that are deemed a necessity in our society. I find it pretty sickening that a big business essentially has the ability to force people to pay out whatever it pleases to "drink at this watering hole." Now I wouldn't mind if a small business man did this and several other (unconnected) businesses competed but these conglomerate entities are essentially one big club and therefore have no need to compete, which means higher price for lower quality.

Plus, who knows what they will or will not put in the water supply? Will they get cheap and dump who knows what in the water supply, getting people sick?

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

» One or the Other Posted by: pdxjoe
» It's a matter of scale. Posted by: JakobFabian01
Pickens is aTOOL!
Posted by: ZenQuixote on Aug 21, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he tries to portray himself as some sort of humanitarian... but in the last 2 years he has "generously" donated over 300 million dollars to oklahoma state university, mostly so they could use eminent domain to build a new footbal stadium...

screw that guy, and anyone that looks like him!

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

» RE: don't worry...It's Chinatown! Posted by: BigElectricCat
There is no such thing as nuclear "waste"
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

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

Pickens' Politics
Posted by: astockton on Aug 21, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
T. Boone claims he votes Republican and always will, because when he gets to heaven, he doesn't want to explain to his great-greats why he voted for a Democrat. Maybe he should reconsider his assumption that heaven is where he'll be going.

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

» RE: Pickens' Politics Posted by: Carol Burns
Maintaining control.....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 21, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is yet another example of a rich man trying to maintain his control of Americans! This 3 card monty game needs to end!

Americans need to wake up to reality. We are standing on the threshold of not just an economic collapse but an environmental catastrophe of our own making! We can not drill our way out, nor can we keep putting off the inevitable decisions that need to be made. Future generations will look back and scream what were they thinking!?

The experts agree that even if the oil companies started drilling offshore today, it would still take at least 10 years before any productive outflow would be achieved! We need to fund alternatives, and stop these robber barrons from profiteering at the expense of the common good!

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

laughable
Posted by: willd4change on Aug 21, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why the discussion, common sence will tell you the plan is unubtanable. You need sustained wind to generate electricity so the power they would get is a drop in the bucket. Solar doesnt work because of cloud cover, so most solar pannels never work at peak performance, check it out for yourself. The problem is simple, the defence department is the largest consumer of oil and gas, NOT US. You really think the boys in the defence department would cut their big bussiness profits in half or more lmfao.

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

Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [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.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity
production. Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas than
any other source, includinh hydro, solar and wind.
Page 15: The Sierra Club used to favor nuclear power over hydro
but switched for political reasons.
Page 17: Coal kills 24000 Americans and 400000 Chinese every
year. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans total. Hydro has
killed 1000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Chinese.

I'm on page 25.

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

» Wrong on every count Posted by: PaulC
waynep
Posted by: waynep on Aug 21, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that we need be as careful in trusting Pickens as we are in attacking him. Has he been part of the problem..yes. Has he divested himself of involvement..apparently not. That does not negate that his support for such things as wind power "allows" some of our conservative citizens who do not own oil to give consideration to wind not being just another "liberal" idea that they can dismiss in a knee jerk reaction. The money that Pickens has put into this promotion is money that we do not have, so that is also a good thing. The biggest fear that I have was spoken clearly by in a previous comment. Given his support for the Bush administration, this campaign could be all about given Pickens credibility on this issue, and then having him endorse McCain. Now, if he endorses Obama..... then I will consider this to be a "death bed" conversion! You know, if you know you have done wrong most of your life, you know it has to be coming to an end in the easily foreseeable future, and you believe in a literal heaven (and more importantly HELL!) , that can be a real good motivator to try to end your life singing a hymn!

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

Who didn't smell that Corp stench?
Posted by: Purple Girl on Aug 21, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it everything goes through the media outlets but they can't ever find a news worthy story to repeatedly loop every 5 minutes.
I can see a biography on Britney or some obscure poet, but I never see any exposes on these people who actually cause ripple effects in to our lives.
New legislation..to be called News, you must have investigative reports, tell ALL the facts and never intertwine op ed during it. Have 'Warning' just like rated shows- "Warning this show contains Only opinions of the guest per their analysis, bias is graphic"

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

SOMEBODY with $$$ has to build "it..."
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Aug 21, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SOMEBODY with $$$ has to build "it..."

Better Pickens than Bechtel. It's not as if the gov't is going to start funding huge clean energy projects... Where is the $ gonna come from if not from billionaire oil folks?

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

All Green to Mr. Pickens but....
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 21, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He favors wind generators that are very large in size,require a lot of maintainance and are not very cost effective per acre. There a great many other options for wind energy that are far more effective in power-per-acre and in less maintainance costs, and in the cost of the generators themselves.
My personal favorite is the Turby system from Norway. You can check them out at;
www.turby.nl
They are designed for inner city dwellings too.
We can kick oil to the curb with wind energy we just have to not be huckstered into large costly systems when we can do more with a little applied thinking.
But then again billionaires are'nt that smart,they just know how to get money,that's a craft. Smart would have been to design their industries to be environmentally inret in the first place so we would'nt be here now.
Write- In Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

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

Pickens is scary...
Posted by: tbone on Aug 21, 2008 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for pointing out the potential for him to endorse McCain...fortunately most people can easily see thru his wind campaign...wind will never crest 20% of our energy use, plain and simple. Do the math.

One thing to add to the Pickens Bash...who do you think owns all of the prime "wind" land??? Not only will he make money from his hedge funds who are tied into the engineering firms, he will charge for the use of the land, then he will pilfer any resources under the dirt...

Like in Texas, he will use the facade of installing wind turbines (THEY NEED ROADS TO GET THE CRANES TO THE SITE!) to get at any other resources...oil, gas, water. And it looks like he has found ways around the environmental road blocks that protect all of us.

This man is absolute greed, pure and simple.

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

Mister to you
Posted by: maxsmart on Aug 21, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ahhh Vulture Capitalism at it's finest! They will selling you air before long at a premium price!

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

Pickens is another asshole who's a TOTAL DISGRACE to us Texans just like Dubya !
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 21, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please forgive us Texans who tried not to allow such weasels to ruin everything. If you're enthusiastic about wind energy for electricity, please do not let this wind trasher be your "role model". It is possible to go smaller scale. Besides, Pickens has no intention of helping more people attain their individual freedom to install wind turbines at their own homes or he'd be fighting the phoney BIG GOVERNMENT zoning laws.

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

More than any other person, T. Boone Pickens is most
Posted by: NotNeoCon on Aug 21, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
responsible for the oil debacle we find ourselves in. Now, he hoarding water in the southwest to sell to Dallas and Fort-Worth.

But, more despicable than anything else is that he was a major player in getting the privileged idiot in the White House elected - twice, to say nothing of the idiot's father who gave us Dick Cheney to look after Junior Dumb Ass.

I have no respect for T. Boone regardless of his million Billions!

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

Why trendy environmentalism appears on page two.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 21, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simply put, every barrel of oil we buy ourselves out of using an alternate source of energy is a barrel of oil that becomes cheaper somewhere else in the world.

That's not to say that we should not invest in discovering and implementing alternative methods of energy, that's just to say that those who think that Americans buying electric cars, bicycles, or massively investing in commuter rail by selling more of America to China (and I do bike to work every day and support expansion of commuter rail, btw) will solve the new satan of gobal worming are small-world thinkers. Doing so simply replaces where that same barrel of oil that you didn't use is burned, probably more cheaply, and almost assuredly with fewer emissions restrictions. That feeling of superiority that it wasn't your country that caused the oceans to acidify amounts to an ethics debate among dead folks, something also known as "irrelevant".

So, that's why American energy policy should be centered around popping the foreign oil tit our of lady liberty's mouth--do what you can, where you can--and why the environmentalism movement takes a back seat: they're still stuck thinking that the world revolves around them, and that America can fix everything. It's truly a Booshayan mindset--China is opening a new coal fired plant every week to ten days, and they are the fastest growing consumers of automobiles (internal combustion engine) in the world.

For further guidance on why subsidizing expansion of oil burning elsewhere in the world won't help the environment, see also: diffusion and physical and chemical properties of CO2.

As an aside:

...that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.

I've often wondered what folks who use this phrase actually do with their cake, besides eating it.

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

NG gas price will follow gasoline. We need electrics.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Aug 21, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

Your wallet is about to take another hit.

The price of heating a home with natural gas is expected to be at least 20 percent higher this winter, according to federal predictions.

By Beccy Tanner | Wichita Eagle


Of course...imagine the cost to heat your home if the same gas becomes in demand for transportation as well. Prices will soar just as gas has...keeping the same people wealthy as always.

We need pure electric cars we can plug in at home. Electricity from wind, solar, nuclear etc. is still cheaper than fuels and we plug in at home.

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

Seniort Cynic
Posted by: rdodell on Aug 21, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The propaganda programs which Fossil fuels, ethanol and some bio-fuels have created make Hitler's "lie-machine" sound mild as an Aesop's Fable. Big Oil, Coal and their associated parasite offshoots, ethanol and some biofuels, have managed to focus World attention exclusively on themselves. Some questions are beginning to emerge however, which threaten their death-grip on what has become our planet's
primary energy sources. Many are asking just WHY we continue to support our depencence on
soon-to-be exhausted, life threatening, costly fuels rather than dedicate ourselves and all of mankind to a supreme effort to develop truly renewable alternative energy sources. Such a global effort would likely carry a price tag in the billions of dollars...billions of dollars which might not make their way into the bulging pockets of the present "Energy Barons". Keeping
the public focused on fossil fuels is the distraction they are counting on to amass even greater fortunes in the short term. By now we should be aware this greedy bunch of thieves has absolutely no regard for the consequences to future generations.
In the 1940's this Nation committed to the most preposterous scientific undertaking in history.
"The Manhattan Project" cost American taxpayers
millions of dollars, but the united scientific community of the time developed an energy source previously considered impossible. In this age, nuclear may not be the answer to our energy problems. Is it possible however, that a modern world-wide Manhattan Project type scientific effort might result in revolutionary, acceptable methods of energy production? So long as we continue to buy into fossil fuel's fairy tales, they will scorn any such scientific researc and development funding.
Unfortunately, in efforts to keep their pockets full and their campaign chests bulging, our self-dedicated lawmakers will cooperate to the fullest.

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

THEY WILL BE SELLING YOU AIR
Posted by: Carol Burns on Aug 21, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they already are...HOT AIR.

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

Aredee
Posted by: Aredee on Aug 21, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Pickens (who should add an "r" to his last name) came up with this idea, I was immediately skeptical believing anything this character assassin and underwriter of the "Swiftboat" slander was connected with.

Then I reached the conclusion that even a broken mechanical watch can be correct twice a day.

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

stovebolt
Posted by: electron on Aug 21, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a very interesting article. I had heard he was after water rights. I sure can't see why a person as rich as guys like Pickens want even more when they have one foot near the grave. My goodness you would think they would be happy to be alive and healthy let alone wealthy. Maybe that's the reason that I am not wealthy.

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

I just knew it!
Posted by: sausage on Aug 21, 2008 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I knew this guy was full of it.

Why would anybody trust a billionaire capitalist to be concerned about "the people."

The bottom line with these f*cks, is always the bottom line...their bottom line.

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

Get Over Your (justifiable) Anger
Posted by: lamar on Aug 21, 2008 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If the entire American fleet were to switch over to natural gas, the air would possibly (but not probably) be around 30 percent cleaner in a decade, but Pickens would be richer in much higher percentages."

Progressives will lose all credibility if they reject a plan that would clean the environment because somebody profits from it.

By rejecting a good environmental plan because the wrong guy profits, the progressives will have become full-fledged Karl Roves. No longer will Democrats look at the merit of anything. They'll only look for a quick way to score cheap political points and, of course, cling to power.

I would hope that the left is more intelligent and less self-absorbed than that. Sure, there will always be an ugly thought of money going to Pickens after showing himself to be one of the world's biggest schoolyard bullies.

Get over it for the good of the planet. We do still put the good of the planet over our petty grievances, don't we? Do we swiftboat the original swiftboater?

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

Where is the substance to this article?
Posted by: truthlover on Aug 21, 2008 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was expecting a critique of what the man is actually saying; instead each new paragraph talked only about some aspect of his capitalist behavior.

OK, so you don't like him, and that may be justified.

But what are the merits and demerits of his actual proposals?

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

TBoone Opportunist
Posted by: Kahoneez on Aug 21, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before reading the article commonsense told me , an international oil guy dealt with Foreign oil, the same group he criticizes and now that he has ALREADY made his fortune , while supporting rampant oil use , supporting Humvee burning up oil,monopolizing water rights, this is the guy we are to follow (according to corporate media ).
GIVE ME A BREAK ! It stinks any way you look at it !
It's obvious OIL companies will want to monopolize new energy , once oil begins to dry up and he will do the same thing , besides no one man should control water, that the general public relys on for LIFE .

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

funny how nobody mentions FREE water-power?
Posted by: ibemee on Aug 21, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
turbines in the ocean ..in rivers, canals, even irrigation ditches..
can produce electricity almost for free--- BUT wind, sun & water isn't easy to monopolize, is it - and face the f-a-c-t that the moguls aren't interested in anything they can't monopolize. The Wind Farms are only to make you believe they're 'willing' to try alternatives....

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

dick
Posted by: rtmyth on Aug 21, 2008 4:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Boone Pickens rhymes with picking a boon. This character is right out of Charles Dickens. Another of his schemes is to buy up West Texas water rights and resell them or water to Dallas, San Antonio, etc. He believes strongly in subsidizing the rich at the expense of the masses.

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

You got that right! Boone's a scam artist
Posted by: dayahka on Aug 21, 2008 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You assessed Boone's ideas correctly. The problem is, however, that some progressives, like Obama, have fallen hook, line, and sinker for his scam.

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

Pickens real reason - replace natural gas power as gas declines
Posted by: permatopia on Aug 21, 2008 4:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peak Natural Gas in the US was 1973, 35 years ago.

Peak Natural Gas in Canada is happening now.

Pickens probably knows that natural gas for transportation is a fantasy. Most billionaires aren't stupid.

Pickens is probably hoping to build lots of wind turbines to provide electricity in a few years when the natural gas declines to the point where we need to save it for heating homes. Since most new power generators in the US run on natural gas, the decline of natural gas poses huge risks to the power grid.

Electric cars will be nice toys for wealthy people, but they're not going to replace our existing levels of overconsumption. No "alternative" technology is as energy dense as fossil fuels. No substitute is going to completely replace the current infrastructure. Carpooling would reduce oil consumption much faster than electric cars, but that's a social issue, not a techno-geek fantasy.

Geological limits to endless fossil energy are more important than politics and economics.

This message was typed using solar photovoltaic electricity, but transmitted to Alternet's computer via coal, natural gas, damns, nuclear reactors and some wind power. Energy literacy would be needed to think clearly about Peak Oil and Climate Change, but even the "alternative" media have failed to communicate the basic facts of energy depletion and the concept of "energy return on energy invested." This allows Obama and McCain to debate whether to open up oil drilling in areas that don't have much (or any) oil - both of them are lying about the energy crisis. At least Pickens is willing to state we are at Peak Oil now, but his wind turbines would not reduce the use of oil, since wind mills make electricity and almost no oil is used to run the power grid in the US. It is highly unlikely there will be any new increase in any use of natural gas, since the new drilling for natural gas is in more marginal fields that decline relatively quickly - so there isn't some enormous amount of domestic natural gas that could be quickly expanded.

Peak Oil means "less," which is a bummer, which is why the political system (of all flavors) ignores it. But ignoring it won't make it go away.

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

Math Skills Lacking In Science Article
Posted by: gradioc on Aug 21, 2008 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found the author's arguments hard to even consider because he can't do math and knows nothing about water. 320,000 acre-feet isn't 104 million gallons (which would probably supply a city like Dallas for a day, if that). It is, instead, 10.4 billion gallons. He only missed it by a factor of 100. Water is the stuff I know about, but if that is wrong, why should I trust anything he says about the stuff I don't know?

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

THIS IS THE GUY WHO FUNDED "SWIFTBOATING"!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: rancespergl on Aug 21, 2008 5:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That disqualifies him from...oh, I dunno, EVERYTHING?!

He must be fought on every front NO MATTER what it is! He wants to give his money to a good cause-then let him give it unconditionally, no profit, no perks, no allowances.

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

An enemy of your enemy is your friend
Posted by: cruzecon on Aug 21, 2008 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was dismayed with the information here but, it is definitely need to know information. I still think that with his influence, that buisness types will feel more comfortable investing money into wind power at least. This is impoetant because OUR Government is bankrupt for all intents & purposes.
I will now have my eyes out about the water plans as I agree water is a RIGHT of SURVIVAL to ALL THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT not a private for profit corporation like American Oil is subject to under Trans-National Corporations who deny "native oil" to the natives who actually own it.
Still Picken's plan is more of a start on a large scale, than has ever been put forward before.

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

Mr. Pickens Has Some Good Ideas
Posted by: asjogren on Aug 21, 2008 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many places in the world where natural gas powers vehicles. In fact, GM now sells natural gas vehicles - just not here. In the US, Honda is the only major retailer with natural gas powered vehicles, but has only one model.

Unlike Oil, natural gas is renewable - to some extent. Animal farms, sewage treatment plants, and garbage dumps are easily exploited sources.

The main impediment to implementing natural gas cars currently is filling stations. And one law change could fix this quickly. Several auto manufacturers could relatively quickly import their existing natural gas vehicles - and if successful, manufacture them here.

I do not believe that natural gas vehicles will be the total solution, but they can buy time for other alternatives and technology development. I think plug-in hybrid technology to be more promising.

Let us not make the perfect the enemy of progress. Are some of Mr. Pickens ideas good? Yes. Is his specific proposal good? Probably not.

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

Pickens may profit - so what?
Posted by: Intellect on Aug 21, 2008 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether Pickens has profited from oil or still does really doesn't matter. The Pickens Plan does not create a monopoly on wind power for anyone. Electric co-ops or local governments in areas where wind power is feasible can erect their own turbines as can any owner of enough land to build them on.
Wind power is part of the solution. So are all other sources of clean energy - natural gas included.
Pickens' motive doesn't really matter.

Here is what a town using wind power can do:
http://link.brightcove.com/services

/link/bcpid1640183817/bctid1726829274

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

Paranoid about nuclear?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 10:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference Book: "The Paranoia Switch" by Martha Stout. Coal
companies push your buttons and pull your chain, just like George
W. Bush, Adolph Hitler, Senator McCarthy and others. MRI
used to be called NMR. The name was changed to get patients
into the scanner. Most Americans are paranoid of terrorists and
all things nuclear. If the "human" brain had been designed by a
competent god, the coal industry would not have a $100 Billion
per year cash flow and George W. Bush would never have had a
chance of being elected once. We all know that we have to
convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear worldwide by 2015,
but it won't happen because the average American has an
irrational fear of all things nuclear. To solve the global warming
problem, the whole USA needs to be sent to a mental health
professional. We have enough time and technology. It is only
mental health and education that are lacking.

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

» RE: Paranoid about nuclear? Posted by: lclark
14.7 Million tons of CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal fired power plants put 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2 into the air every
year for each 1000 Megawatts generated for one year. Nuclear plants put ZERO
CO2 into the air. The CO2 cost of building coal vs. nuclear is the same and
negligible. The CO2 cost of mining and transporting coal is large and not
included in the 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. The mining and transportation
cost of nuclear fuel is zero since Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be
reprocessed and put back into reactors. Each 1000 Megawatts of nuclear power
needs so little uranium that you could easily carry an equal weight in a suitcase.
Burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal makes 14.7 MILLION TONS of CO2. As I
have pointed out many times, burning 4 MILLION TONS of coal puts enough
U235 into the air and cinders to fuel a nuclear plant, or enough uranium +
thorium to fuel hundreds of nuclear plants if breeding is allowed. There is no
way to get there from here without nuclear power, like it or not.

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

James Lovelock on Nuclear Waste
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 21, 2008 11:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Revenge of Gaia" page 91: "A television interviewer once
asked me, "But what about nuclear waste? Will it not poison the
whole biosphere and persist for millions of years?"" I knew this
to be a nightmare fantasy wholly without substance in the real
world. I also knew that the natural world would welcome nuclear
waste as the perfect guardian against greedy developers, and
whatever slight harm it might represent was a small price to pay.
One of the striking things about places heavily contaminated by
radioactive nuclides is the richness of their wildlife. This is true
of the land around Chernobyl, the bomb test sites in the Pacific,
and areas near the United States' Savannah River nuclear weapons
plant of the Second World War. Wild plants and animals do not
perceive radiation as dangerous, and any slight reduction it may
cause in their lifespans is far less a hazard than is the presence of
people and their pets. It is easy to forget that now we are so
numerous, almost anything extra we do in the way of farming,
forestry and home building is harmful to wildlife and Gaia. The
preference of wildlife for nuclear waste sites suggests that the best
sites for its disposal are the tropical forests and other habitats in
need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by hungry
farmers and developers."

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

Pickens opens the door to push back on conservatives
Posted by: progressivevoice on Aug 22, 2008 12:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Picken's comments have given me a great opportunity to counter my conservative friends on offshore oil drilling.

When my conservative friends ask me about what I think about offshore drilling, I just love to say:

"You know, even the most conservative oil man, T Boone Pickens who was a big funder of the 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' says that we can't drill our way out of this -- that continuing to rely on oil is a huge national security problem and that we have to move quickly to get off of oil and onto alternatives for the good of the country"

Then I say, "His plan may or may not be the best plan, but even this highly conservative oil man understands the problem that America must innovate and become energy self sufficient for the good of the country.'

Pickens provides a great opportunity to get conservatives to rethink their position that drilling is the answer to $4.00 gsoline because:

1. The messenger (Pickens) is one of their own -- a died in the wool conservative and therefore a patriot (at least from their point of view)

2. He is an oil man and must know the state of the oil reserves and energy demand.

If a Liberal said that we can't drill our way out of this, my conservative friends would laugh and make derogatory comments about tree huggers.

When one of their own (Pickens) is the messenger, they kind of have to listen and think about it.

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

Nuclear power is the safest there is
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.

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

Coal contains Uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 22, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD,
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Coal smoke and cinders are commercially
viable ORE for the above elements.
Chinese industrial grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The
result is that the whole family dies of arsenic poisoning because Chinese
industrial grade coal contains large amounts of arsenic. Coal varies a lot.
You have to analyze it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump.
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
See also: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

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

WHO DO YOU THINK WILL FIND ALTERNATE FUELS AND ENERGY?
Posted by: kurtisle on Aug 25, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're waiting for a non-capitalist with billions of dollars to spring up suddenly and magnanimously build wind generators, while disavowing all forms of other means of income…it’s going to be a very long…wait. People think that it’s going to be done for “the gooood (sic) of all mankind” (warm and fuzzy thinking) Well, think again. The only ones with enough money to do it all, are really, really rich people…and were we to inspect the incomes of them all we might notice a trend………they want to continue to make money. They’re not going to suddenly turn Jesus and do it for free. GET REAL PEOPLE!

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

To quote Plato
Posted by: A Week In The Life of A Redhead on Aug 25, 2008 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A tyrant…is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."

I am thinking Plato was refering to Mr. T.

[« 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