'Pickens Plan' Comes in the Nick of Time

If you've been watching TV lately, you've probably heard about the "Pickens Plan" for American energy independence. This is a lofty goal from an improbable source to be sure. But as unlikely as it may sound, these ideas just may work.

To begin, who the heck is T. Boone Pickens anyway, and why is he so concerned about America's energy crisis? Well, Mr. Pickens is a Texas oil billionaire who owns, among other entities, BP Capital. He is 80 years old, although he looks to be in his mid-60's, and his mind is still as sharp as a steel trap. He says he used to be a Republican, but he gave that up so he could convince Congressmen and Senators from both political parties his plan is "non-partisan" and deserves their consideration.

So what exactly is this fellow proposing? Well, if you've seen his TV commercials, which he says he is paying for with $58 million of his own money, he believes our nation's energy crisis is alot more serious than our having to pay $4 a gallon right now for gas at the pump. He says we're sending $700 billion a year overseas to pay for imported oil, which over the next ten years, will result in "the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind."

He believes, therefore, that until we can develop the next generation of non-polluting fuels to power our country, we need to take immediate, drastic action so we don't go broke in the meantime. By this, Pickens is referring to the construction of vast wind farms, and utilizing our nation's surplus of natural gas [NG]. He has maps that show the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia of wind," as he likes to put it, and that there is enough NG in America to power our transportation needs for many years ahead.

So how would this work and what would it mean to consumers? Pickens claims that if we got serious and started right now, we could build enough wind farms in the mid-section of the U.S. (from North Dakota down through Texas, where the best wind is) that we could generate 20% of our nation's electricity from this renewable resource in the next THREE YEARS. Utility companies would provide the transmission lines, and all he needs from Congress is access to rights of way across property, whose owners would be fairly compensated.

This, in turn, would free up a like amount of NG now being used by utilities to provide electric service to our homes and businesses, which could be used to fuel our cars and trucks instead. Would this mean we would have to convert our existing vehicles to operate on NG in lieu of gasoline or buy new ones? No, but we might want to. NG has been used as a transportation fuel for decades, and already powers many large vehicle fleets. And drivers love NG in Utah and Oklahoma, where they are paying less than $1 a gallon (wow!) to fill up today.

You may ask what Mr. Pickens is going to get out of all this. Well, he owns trash trucks that operate on NG now in San Diego, CA, where municipal vehicles are presently using NG to arrest their air pollution problem. And he has put together a consortium of private investors who have ordered $2 billion of wind turbines from GE on land they already have access to in Texas. But he says he's not in it for the money, and with $4 billion in the bank it's easy to believe him.

So, what are the chances the Pickens Plan will be successful? As he was testifying before Congress this week, it was obvious he had done extensive research on his proposal, and he knew a great deal more about the real promises and pitfalls of the U.S. energy crisis we are facing than the Senators and so-called energy experts he was addressing. And the money he's spending to inform Americans about the mess we're in because we now have to import 70% of the oil we use can't hurt either.

This may sound old fashioned, but I believe T. Boone is spending his own time and fortune to demonstrate that the Pickens Plan can actually work, and he's doing it, as he says, because he believes in America. Moreover, I'd say we ought to take him up on the interest this 80-year old self-made American entrepreneur has shown in our country's future while there's still time left to do it.

If you like, you may go to PickensPlan.com for a complete explanation of the Pickens Plan and additional information.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[rpexplorer:]

It will also stimulate cash flow throughout the country as consumers purchase $2,000 conversion kits for their vehicles. But to work, doesn't he need the renewal of the tax credit for the wind portion of his plan? That's asking a lot from the "dumbest" group of people we've seen lately - the U.S. congress.

2008 Jul 24 08:22 AM

[erniem:]

One of the better ideas around, with several serious problems. I would love to see the wind farms built. The NG for cars, in a modified plan. The truth is the current crop of vehicles need to go. We need to use NG for fuel EFFICIENT vehicles, not as a stopgap to allow relatively inefficient vehicles to stay on the road.

The day the US congress requires all cars to get a mininum of 30 mpg and provides tax benefit for higher mileage will be the day the US gets serious about energy policy.

2008 Jul 24 08:52 AM

[erniem:]

Sorry, distribution and storage facilities for NG is another problem, as the amount of storage required is HUGE.

2008 Jul 24 08:56 AM

[CLH:]

Pickens plan is only to enrich Pickens. Wind power is a boone doggle with no chance of doing anything but taking billions from the tax payers. We need more nuclear power and drilling for oil not boone doggles.

2008 Jul 24 09:09 AM

[freefall51:]

I applaud Mr. Pickens for his initiative. The problem with wind power however is, that it is inherently unreliable. In order to cover a baseload demand there must be held in parallel conventional power generation in hot stand by such as cole of NG fired or nuclear to cover that demand. Windpower always comes second after conventional unless we find a way to store energy and balance out energy generation peaks and troughs from wind. If you have sink your money in conventional technology first you only can calculate the profitablity of windpower against the saings in variable cost to operate conventional power generation. Given the example of Germany having promoted wind mills for two decades wind power must then be heavily subsidized to be viable. Then I would say this is no big deal. Better look for nuclear technology. There is no better use for uranium that burning it up.

2008 Jul 24 09:13 AM

[20smoney:]

Pickens Plan isn't perfect. However, it is a solution and is one that Pickens himself is willing to spend tons of his personal money to move forward.

At least somebody is pushing a real solution! Who else is doing this? Congress? Al Gore?

I applaud Pickens for taking such an interest in our future. A future he won't live to see, but still sees that it's worth investing in.

Every potential solution will have imperfections. When will we stop criticizing and start moving forward together towards a better future?

I'm with Pickens on this one.

2008 Jul 24 09:23 AM

[User 232033:]

More BS We can be energy independent now if we were allowed to drill and refine!

2008 Jul 24 10:27 AM

[Chris1:]

It's typical energy "crisis" bonehead planning, similar to the Carter efforts in the 70's.

The reason energy isn't fairly priced is the level of government ownership worldwide. In particular oil. It could go for $5 or as of today $125, all kinds of complicated reasons for the range but at many levels wind power and many other "green fantasy" solutions are wiped out. So it's malinvestment on a vast and ultimately taxpayer level.

So what is the plan really? To lock up a fantasy high price and cost structure that sounds good to the leftist moonbats but will stick a generation with government and crony interests force feeding their wisdom on us instead of letting markets and individual interests decide. If they hadn't blocked oil production and other resources it wouldn't be this bad. Peak oil is myth supported only by the levels of extreme supply restrictions, third world confusion etc.

Government makes the crisis and then grabs for power to "solve" the problem. One small irony of course is that wind turbines will kill far more wild life than oil ever has. They are bird killing machines on a vast scale. That's how socialism works; good for special interests like Pickens and the cabal of "alternative energy" subside eaters but bad in most other objective ways. There is no objectivity in a socialist state of course.

2008 Jul 24 10:33 AM

[doug estadt:]

Boone Pickens is a great American putting his own money where his mouth is, something so few people possess the integrity to do. You can see video of him at www.wsmco.com/show.asp...

2008 Jul 24 11:21 AM

[TAMR666:]

EVERYONE HAD BETTER START LISTENING. THIS MAN KNOWS WHAT IS OR PROBLEM AND HOW TO START ON A WAY TO RECOVERY.

2008 Jul 24 11:23 AM

[Jackson Cash:]

The comments on this forum are evidence to me of how many people fail to think in terms of the aggregate. There is no magic fix for energy, and using wind and NG to OFFSET current demand is HUGE. The seeds Pickens is planting are significant from the perspective of this citizen. The back of Communism in the former Soviet Union was broken significantly due in part to "financial terrorism" (ha) and the manipulation of their currency. So it could very well be with the dollar... interesting for thought.

2008 Jul 24 12:26 PM

[Allen Fuller:]

Pickens' Plan is a great first step. There are some problems with it, but I think these can be addressed.

The biggest problem facing America is that we need 10 or 20 "Pickens' Plans" in the next 10 to 20 years. We need wind, solar, nuclear, ocean power, electric cars, improvements to our power grids, grid-scale energy storage, and yes, we DO need to drill for whatever oil we have left.

Currently, worldwide, we only find about 1 new barrel of oil for every 6 that we use up, and this is finally starting to catch up with us. Coal is a huge resource but if we switch everything over to it (e.g. coal to oil liquification) then we'll use up a supposedly 200-year supply much faster than we expect. Oil shale may help, but we can't extract it fast enough to replace all our oil. Moreover, it is expensive and consumes a lot of energy... leaving a much smaller "net" gain in energy than many people expect.

In the LONG run (and that's how we should be viewing things instead of this stupid stopgap mentality you see from politicians and partisans), if it's not renewable, it's not going to be an option, whether we like it or not. So that's where the biggest push should be. Take Nanosolar's approach, for example. They have just built, I think, the biggest solar plant in the world, and by some calculations, can provide solar electricity for cheaper than coal (over the life of the solar panel). However even though it's the largest plant in the world, we need 100 of them, not just 1. We also need to develop grid-scale energy storage technologies because the sun doesn't shine at night!

So yes, Pickens' plan is a good start. Let's do it and let's do 10 times more in the next 10-20 years.

2008 Jul 24 12:30 PM

[User 229640:]

Chris1,

Almost every statement in your post is provably false.

2008 Jul 24 02:46 PM

[petersterling:]

The Pickens Plan is great. In Addion ANWR should be producing ten percent of Americas oil needs.

Oil Shale could replace one third of America's imports and provide all the gasoline and diesel requirements for middle America.

Things you didn't know about oil shale
By Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah
Article Launched: 07/24/2008 12:30:00 AM MDT

Democrats control Congress, so Americans ought to be asking about their plan to lower gas prices. Let's hope their plan doesn't rest on solar, wind and geothermal, because planes, trains and automobiles don't run on electricity; they run on oil - mostly foreign oil. Or at least 97 percent of the time they run on oil, and the other 3 percent is mostly ethanol. Let's also hope the Democrats" plan doesn't rest on ethanol to break our dependence on foreign oil, because it can't. More on that later.
Americans ship about $700 billion annually to foreign oil traffickers, and Democrats respond by shutting down America's own energy supplies. Now at the mercy of foreign governments smart enough to produce their own energy, we are selling away our nation's place in the world and funding the rise of our most aggressive competitors and even our enemies.
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah have more oil in oil shale than OPEC. Everyone seems to know that by now, but here are six things you probably did not know about oil shale.
1) Did you know oil shale has a smaller carbon footprint than ethanol? When calculating the carbon emissions of the entire oil shale process, without the use of carbon capture technology, its total carbon footprint is about 7 percent larger than gasoline. But a peer-reviewed article in the February issue of Science calculates the entire carbon footprint of ethanol to be 93 percent larger than gasoline. The article reports that even switchgrass footprint is 50 percent larger than gasoline.
2) Did you know oil shale uses less water than ethanol and no more than gasoline? Increased ethanol production will require more irrigation. A September 2007 article in Southwest Hydrology states that irrigated corn requires more than 780 barrels of water for each barrel of ethanol. The Department of Energy reports that oil shale, for the entire process including land restoration, requires three barrels of water for every barrel of shale oil, about the same as gasoline.
3) Did you know oil shale uses much less land than either ethanol or gasoline? One acre of corn produces 10 barrels of ethanol. One acre in the oil patch produces about 10,000 barrels of oil. One acre of oil shale produces between 100,000 and one million-plus barrels of shale oil! No, that's not a typo.
Whether your concern is carbon emissions, water use or wildlife habitat, oil shale is a better answer than ethanol. And when it comes to transportation fuels, ethanol is the only alternative of any real significance.
4) Did you know oil shale has been commercially produced in Brazil for 30 years and in Estonia for 80 years? Technology is not a barrier.
5) Did you know that oil shale failed in 1982 due to the price dropping to $10 a barrel, not because of technology or scarcity of water? That was a quarter century ago, and a lot has changed since then. Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1982 was the Computer. Today, we have better technology, better environmental regulations and OPEC can no longer flood the oil market.
6) Did you know current law gives each governor, before any commercial leases are granted, the right to set the pace of oil shale development? But Rep. Mark Udall has put a moratorium on commercial leasing regulations, effectively taking away that right for Utah's governor. The action produces no additional rights for Colorado, but destroys Utah's right to move forward at any pace.
Some have expressed concerns that the horse should not be put in front of the cart with regard to oil shale production. But the moratorium slaughters the horse and barricades the road. You protect against a bust by supporting an activity, not artificially starving it.
I've supported Colorado's right to choose its own pace. Utah deserves the same courtesy.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
www.denverpost.com/hea...

2008 Jul 24 02:54 PM

[Investor612:]

I admire Pickens for trying to help his country. Some comments:

1. We don't need government mandates for high mileage vehicles. let the marketplace work. Government mandates will only make it more expensive and difficult for those who need high horsepower vehicles for specific purposes. The average mileage of vehicles being sold this year is much greater than last year and auto manufacturers are already busting their butts to meet the demand for vehicles that get more mpg.
2. Pickens plan is multifaceted-more nuclear,wind,solar, ng, more domestic drilling. 5% here, 2 % there,3% there ,4 % here and 5% yet somewhere else and pretty soon there's significant savings.
3. How about some painless conservation? Last week I did a little experiment on a 72.1 mile trip and back on the interstate using my 2002 Chevy Astro van. I chose that particular trip because there was little wind that day. Going there I set the cruise at 75, the speed limit. When I left I filled up taking care to top off the tank. When I arrived I again filled up again topping off the tank. I uswd 4.06 gallons for an average mpg of 17.8. My appointment was a half block from the gas station so going back the trip was 72.2 miles. Going back I set the cruise at 65mph and filled up at the same station I used when leaving. Again taking care to top off the tank I used 3.64 gallons which means I got 19.8 mpg. Quite a difference.
Simply lowering the speed limits to 65 on interstates, 60 on all other 4 lanes, and 55 on 2 lanes would lower gas consumption significantly, cut oil imports by at least 10%. That's 70 billion less a year in wealth transfer Pickens is talking about. The question is, are we Americans so spoiled and self-indulgent that we won't accept even a slight sacrifice and/or inconvenience?

2008 Jul 24 05:58 PM

[AlexS:]

Since most of our natural gas is domestically produced it's not obvious that cutting its usage (in favor of wind turbines) would decrease dollar flow to the Middle East. This would especially be true if the wind turbines (or their steel) end up being produced somewhere else (how long before I see "Made in China" on a wind turbine?). Why not just allow increased drilling for natural gas? And keep in mind that gas turbines are typically used for peak generation of electricity, during those long hot summer days when the wind is most likely to be still. In that case, since wind energy is not easily stored, we will need gas-fueled plant capacity anyway (doesn't sound very efficient to me, building two power plants instead of one). Now the rights of way, on the other hand, would probably be very valuable for various things other than wind turbine electricity. Maybe it could be used to transport that Bakken gas to other markets.

2008 Jul 24 06:38 PM

[scfranklin94:]

AlexS - on the coasts nat gas is only used for peaking generation, but here in Texas and Oklahoma it's used for baseload; approx 48% of the generation in Texas is from nat gas. If it was only used for peaking, it would be 30% or less of power generation. The rest of the energy stack in Texas is nuclear and lignite coal. I have no problems with nuclear, other than it's implementation time-frame is measured in generations. As for lignite coal, we might as well be burning firewood - it's the dirtiest form of power generation outside of coal gasification. I would rather spend a bundle on wind power plants with nat gas standby plants, than build another lignite coal plant; I suspect the residents in the southeastern US would prefer that also, since all that pollution gets blown their way.

2008 Jul 25 08:45 AM

[Marcus Aure...:]

As long as the wind farms are widely dispersed they should be able (as a whole) be able to maintain an average output and remember they can tune each station to the particular condition each station faces. I agree it would be great to come up with a practical way to store output in excess of current needs.

The one concern I have is a whole lot of us use natural gas to power our home heating, cooking, and the like. Diverting significant amounts of natural gas to transport would hit those people hard.

Investor612 is spot on about speed. When gas prices are topping out like they are now, I drive the speed limits and watch my brake usage as well as my acceleration and when I do all of that the mileage on my Impala is noticeably higher.

As far as jobs go, my father notices tons of tubes being built in a town on Lake Michigan. He thought it was oil pipeline but it turns out to be wind turbine towers.

At least Pickens is doing something and not just yapping. Some pols, one in particular, are nothing but Jimmy Swaggarts of the global warming faith.

2008 Jul 25 08:55 AM

[Marcus Aure...:]

AlexS,

The plan is to replace traditional gasoline sourced overseas with domestically sourced natural gas that is how we would staunch the flow of wealth outside the US.

2008 Jul 25 09:03 AM

[john s. gordon:]

psterling - oil was produced from manchurian (now called northeast china) shale by the japanese from 1931 to 1945. this was essential to their war machine after the indonesian supply was cut off by u.s submarines.

the australian shale oil production was terminated in 1945 when normal commercial supplies resumed.

the u.s shale development stopped in 1927 when east texas came in big time.
> jack

2008 Jul 25 09:18 AM

[nakedjaybird:]

It's obvious from the comments that many of you need to come to an understanding of this chart:

static.seekingalpha.co...

Then, it should become more clear to you that Boon'es plus other's wind (and solar, nuclear, hydro...) should replace not only the natural gas in electric power generation (22% for primarily peak generation at 70% waste energy), but also the coal (50% of our power generated also at 70% waste); leave those hydrocarbons in the ground and use the free and forever readily available energy. That's the power gen side.

On the Transportation side, Boone should not only leave his NG in the ground instead of powering cars (again at 70% waste heat), but we should go fully electric to replace the actual useful work (6 Quads our of 40 Quads) in all that crude with 6 Quads of electric; a 50% increase from the 12 Quads of electric we currently produce and distribute around the USA.

So go ELECTRIC in Transportation: railroads, interstates, beltways with steel wheeled rails, EV's and hybrids with biofuels and leave all the hydrocarbons in the ground.

Don't you get it folks? Seventy percent (70%) of all the hydrocarbons we burn is WASTE!!!! Duh!!!!

That means in simple terms, we need to only produce 30% of useful electric energy "for free" to replace 100% of all the stuff we burn. DUH!!!

2008 Jul 25 12:14 PM

[kebu77:]

You really have to check out Alan Drake's electrified rail proposal at www.theoildrum.com/nod... . Only rail-based transport (including trolleys and light rail) is efficient enough to allow coal to be continued to be used while still reducing overall CO2 emissions. Electric rail is almost 20:1 more efficient that diesel trucks for moving goods.

2008 Jul 25 01:10 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

kebu77 - there are no CO2 emissions to solar, wind, etc. CO2's come from buning natural hydrocarbons. Don't burn them.

I'm all for electrified steel-wheeled rail transport of good and people (totally electric; not diesel electric) except for in air and on water (burn biofuels).

And I have read Alan Drake's stuff: my conclusion is stop burning natural hydrocarbons AND go totally electric from free, forever energy sources like solar, wind, geo, hydro, nuclear, tidal, and biofuels; then we can still address the shipping effeciencies in transportation of Alan Drake. Again, stop using the coal and the diesel.

2008 Jul 25 02:31 PM

[David Lentz:]

"just in time" ...

or a few years too late?

Check back in 20 years to find out.

2008 Jul 25 04:07 PM

[Erich J Knight:]

Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Terra Preta (TP) Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio reasearch. Thankfully we can do TP now.

Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.

This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age with many energy conversion technologies like Nano solar, thermo-electrics.

TP starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro tech with habitats for wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

This technology represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.Terra Preta Soils a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too. Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration.

Indeed, Dr. James Hansen, NASA's top Atmospheric authority, is now placing it in the center stage of pro-active solutions for the climate crisis.

arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

2008 Jul 25 07:47 PM