So T. Boone Pickens unveiled his plan earlier this week to address the national energy dependency crisis. His plan, if I understand it correctly, is to invest in power generation sources from domestic renewable energy, such as wind, and then to use our "abundant" supplies to natural gas as transportation fuel. He suggests that this plan can reduce foreign oil dependency by more than one-third.
Can it work? What do you think?
I like the idea of more wind energy. I'm more concerned (or maybe it's confused) about the natural gas aspect. I have to do more research but at first blush it seems like we have many of the same issues with natural gas that we do with oil -- cost and access. I live in the Midwest (Ohio), and I can tell you that my heating costs in the winter, which are reliant on natural gas, are through the roof, and according to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, natural gas prices have been going up quite steadily in 2008.
And speaking to abundancy, couldn't we also say that about oil, were we to okay Alaskan drilling and more offshore drilling? My understanding is that we have natural gas supplies that haven't been tapped because the price to access it has been prohibitive, given the potential return on dollars invested. I'm also certain we've been importing liquid natural gas and would like to do more of that were more storage available (and that's a whole 'nother story). So there's already some reliance on natural gas imports. I simply can't say how much --at least at this moment.
With all that said, I don't know what to think about The Pickens Plan. I do plan on researching this natural gas aspect more, but while I do, I expect there are many wiser heads than mine out there that can set me straight. I would welcome your insights.
An "oil man" saying we can't drill out of this situation gets my attention! There are a number of energy sources; but some are more geared to one use over others. Unless we are going to revert to coal powered locomotives and ships, it makes more sense to run power plants on coal not natural gas or fuel oil. Put some $$ in making coal production and consumption as environmentally benign as possible, then use the heck out of it to generate electricity. The shift in demand of natural gas and fuel oil from electrical generation to transportation should reduce the cost of commercial natural gas, home heating fuel and diesel. Adding in wind farms and solar where viable, in addition to wave, hydro, tidal and geothermal would drive down demand for oil even further. Throw in some demand reduction due to conservation using up to 100% cost incentives for businesses and consumers to change out inefficient furnaces, motors, air conditioners and other energy hogs...and can you say "self sufficient"! Thank goodness for the oil speculators and other demons who have driven oil to $150/barrel...pain in the wallet is what will make us use the innovative talents we have within our borders. "We have met the enemy and they is us"..Pogo Go get'em T.Boone!!!
Since you posted this so long ago, you've probably already done what I'm about to suggest, but if not, be sure to check out NREL's renewable energy maps (for wind, geothermal, solar and biomass).
You can certainly interpret them how you want, but after some extensive review on my end, it is clear to me that a large portion of the U.S.'s population - those living on the East Coast - will not be able to rely on wind (or any of the other aforementioned sources) exclusively and for base load needs, especially.
First, let me address the natural gas idea by saying it is way too expensive and has a strained supply. I can't imagine what prices would be like if people were using for their vehicles. Secondly, is it feasible that everyone will be able to get rid of their current vehicles in exchange for new ones that will be capable of running on natural gas?
Now back to wind energy. If you look at the maps I mentioned, you will see that pretty much the only places in the U.S. with enough wind energy to provide a significant amount of electricity are situated in the Midwest and West (Texas, Oklahoma, the Dakotas and especially in the vicinity of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, etc.). Reliance on wind energy in these areas is feasible (but still not for base load purposes, as wind is too unpredictable to know when and how much of it will be available). Imagine only being able to make hot coffee, use a microwave or charge your laptop of mobile when a sufficient amount of wind is blowing at a sufficient pace.
If you're located on the East Coast (where a considerable amount of the U.S.'s population is), you'll need transmission lines from the aforementioned areas all the way to where you live. In Virginia, it took one G&T company 14 years to get a 70-mile transmission line - that impeded only on rural areas - approved. Think of how long it would take to get hundreds, if not thousands of transmission lines approved by each state, county, city and locale from Montana to Virginia. Lest we forget that transmission lines face nearly as much opposition by environmental groups as new coal- and nuclear-fired generation facilities.
Re: the other renewables (geothermal, biomass and solar), they are very similar in location as wind in terms of abundance/sufficient supply.
This is a long-winded reply (pun somewhat intended), but in short, this plan will not work...whatsoever.
Although reducing America's dependence on imported fossil fuels is an admirable goal in itself, I don't think wind power is the best way to go about it. Wind power is unreliable, because wind speeds aren't always the same, and it's also not very safe. Personally I think that in terms of power, developed countries should be looking more at fission and geothermal power. Both are much more reliable than wind power, create essentially no harmful pollution, can last much longer than fossil fuels, and use resources that are readily available inside developed countries. Also, given that fusion power is just around the corner technologically speaking, long-term renewability isn't all that important (but short-term price consistency is still highly important). So my opinion is, down with fossil fuels, down with wind and solar (with the exception of solar power satellites), and up with nuclear and geothermal. Our children will thank us for it.
According to various reports (including here), T. Boone Pickens' plan for a huge wind farm in Texas has collapsed--or been delayed at the very least--and he's trying to find other homes for the the giant wind turbines he's already ordered.
Reasons for the change in plans have variously been cited as the collapse of the capital markets, troubles with transmissions lines in Texas, the drop in price of conventional energy sources, and others.
That said, Pickens says he remains committed to his message that the U.S. must reduce its dependence on foreign oil.
My question is this: Do these recent events surrounding the wind farm plans change your opinion at all about the Pickens Plan? For me, weaning ourselves off of too heavy a reliance on foreign oil still remains a goal worth pursuing.
Can "The Pickens Plan" Work?
Re: Can "The Pickens Plan" Work?
Linear Mode
