Optimistic: T. Boone Pickens Expects Obama Administration to Implement Pickens’ Plan
Billionaire American entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens is optimistic that the Obama administration will bring the United States’ energy infrastructure into the new millennium by implementing his plan for energy independence.
After eight long years there is finally a cause for hope here in the United States. George Bush may still be in office, but right now all America’s problems are President-Elect Obama’s to solve (see Obama Recession, thanks Rush), but he seems ready for them.
- » See also: Waste Management Turns Landfill into Fuel Pump
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
As New York Times columnist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman says, it is time for Obama to act swiftly and implement New Deal policies for the new millennium. Many have said that FDR’s borderline socialist policies failed because he spent too much money, Krugman feels that he did not invest enough. The Pickens’ Plan, as it is so poetically called, may be the starting point for such an investment.
Why is Pickens’ Plan important? Simply because it’s main goal is to divert all of our oil and natural gas to the transportation sector. Factories will no longer use natural gas because they will be powered either on site or through an electric grid powered by wind and solar. The plan stresses efficiency and centrality. It could also potentially save the US $300 billion in oil expenditures. Citing Obama’s plan to end dependency on foreign oil in the next ten years, Pickens expects that the first step will be implementing major parts of his plan.
The major parts of the plan involve the US specially equipping larger vehicles (buses, trucks, etc.) to run on natural gas. This would take a huge load off of our dependence on oil, in turn causing prices to drop because factories and businesses will have no need for it. Demand for oil would come solely from consumers, as would carbon dioxide emissions (the nitrogen oxide emissions will come from the natural gas burning buses).
Pickens has been criticized for the plan, but has responded “If you don’t like my plan, get a plan.” Of course he is a businessman trying to make money, but he does drive a hard bargain. During a recession time like this, a wind initiative would be a huge help to the country. It would create jobs as well as help stabilize our energy future. Pickens has also promised to invest $1 trillion in the project, which should certainly make it easier for the Obama administration to begin implementing the plan.
The plan can work, but only time will tell if some or all of it gets implementes. Pickens cannot do it alone, he needs the government to help. The Obama Administration seems to be attacking the transition with tenacity, which is a good sign for the plan and our energy future as well. I really hope that Obama’s message of change wasn’t just a campaign slogan. So far he has hit the ground running and I look forward to seeing where his administration will go from here.
Want more to read? Check out these links on economics and US energy policy:
- Depression Economics Return
- And for laughs, Rush Limbaugh again. Thanks to the Baltimore Sun for the article.
Source: Yahoo! News (via Biofuels Digest)
Photo Credits: Thanks to Tom Saint’s Flickr photostream under a Creative Commons License.
Anthony
Thanks for the post!
I do take a slightly different angle on things… I think we do need to look more critically at Pickens’ assumptions and the challenges they must overcome. Namely the grid won’t change without federal regulatory changes, we should kill the combustion engine- not try to substitute natural gas for engines (that still can’t use electrons from the grid), and how does natural gas really save the country money? It’s likely that natural gas will be cheaper via LNG sources from regions outside the US.
But the upside is that Pickens is starting a conversation that embraces a complex / comprehensive set of strategies! I just think we need to dig deeper and think ahead about the challenges…
I wrote a recent post about 5 major challenges to the Pickens Plan:
http://www.theenergyroadmap.com/futureblogger/show/1281-picking-apart-the-pickens-plan-5-big-challenges
Garry Golden
Brooklyn, NY
Editor
The Energy Roadmap.com
First, all wind generated energy requires a reliable base load backup. If a backup (in a running ready state) is required for wind power, why build the wind power at all?
Second, what’s included in the $1 trillion cost? Is this for the wind turbines, transmission lines, property acquisitions, and fleet conversion from diesel to natural gas? Or are some of these items extra?
Third, “If you don’t like my plan, get a plan.” How about spending $1 trillion on nuclear, coal and natural gas plants as well as grid upgrades? This will produce not only more energy, but more reliable energy.
Fourth, “Pickens has also promised to invest $1 trillion in the project…” Where’s Pickens going to get a $1 trillion? His hedge fund has lost something like half its value recently and it was never anywhere near a trillion. He’s going to get it from taxpayers; no one would invest in wind farms based solely on economics.
Fifth, how many gigawatts will the Pickens plan produce? Why is this never stated? Wind turbines are notorious for only producing 25 to 40% of their stated output (i.e., a “one megawatt” wind farm produces between 250 and 400 kilowatts of power). Much of this would be produced at night and in the winter and spring when demand is relatively low. The wind blows least in the summer.
Sixth, how much energy will be lost transmitting the energy from Kansas to San Francisco?
Seventh, how much will it cost to maintain tens of thousands of wind turbines and transmission lines spread over thousands of miles?
Eighth, what’s the useful life of a wind turbine? “After the industry’s recent boom years, wind power providers and experts are now concerned. The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting. Gearboxes hiding inside the casings perched on top of the towering masts have short shelf lives, often crapping out before even five years is up. In some cases, fractures form along the rotors, or even in the foundation, after only limited operation. Short circuits or overheated propellers have been known to cause fires. All this despite manufacturers’ promises that the turbines would last at least 20 years.” Spiegel Online August 20, 2007.
http://tinyurl.com/23kkfq
Ninth, how many years will it take to manufacture and install tens of thousands of turbines? Will the Pickens Plan turn out to be like painting the Golden Gate Bridge - once the last turbine is installed, will it be time to replace the first turbine? If so, it will never end.
Here are some quotes from the summary of a recent report by the Industrial Wind Action Group:
“In Texas, however, wind blows
the least during the summer
months when we need power the
most. The Electric Reliability
Council of Texas (ERCOT) relies on just 8.7 percent of wind power’s installed capacity when determining available power during peak summer hours.”
“Due to wind’s intermittency,
wind turbines have much lower
capacity factors-measures of generating units’ actual energy output divided by the energy output if the units operated at its rated power output 100 percent of the time-than conventional (thermal) power sources. As such, wind is not a baseload resource and cannot deliver a large portion of the demand for energy.”
“Without adequate windpower storage, wind-generating units must be backed up by units that generate electricity from conventional sources ….Thus, wind energy is an inherently less valuable resource than fuel sources requiring no backup.”
“Another major issue surrounding wind-energy development is electric transmission capacity.”
“Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs-transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation-that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers.Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.” [That's in addition to turbine construction, maintenance, transmission, operations and backup generation for just for part of Texas. Extrapolate that to the continental United States and you have one hell of an expensive supplemental power grid.]
Texas wind energy: Past, Present, and Future - September, 2008. (emphasis added) http://tinyurl.com/5akyx7
Bill, what are you babbling about? This is a great idea. We just need to get a few of those pesky inhabitants off their land. Pickens needs the government’s help to force them off their land. I guess it wouldn’t exactly be for public purposes, but the public will definitely benefit from it. In San Antonio, we’re already paying more for this cleaner energy. The cost of everything else is going up, so at least energy costs are going up for a good reason. Furthermore, those people are sitting on a gold mine that is an aquifer. They’re not smart enough to do anything about it so Pickens needs to move in and put that water to some good use. With all the money he makes off that deal we can definitely reach energy independence in 10 years. Oh, wait, Obama changed the plan to double clean energy in 10 years. Well, either way it’s a step forward.
I believe that we need to explore new energy resources for automobiles as well. However, since 1966 the auto manufacturers have been avoiding the inevitable, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We need to ween our society off the use of oil and employ multiple sources of energy for our vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell technology could be the next great source of energy. The question we have to ask is how long can we wait?
I have a plan that will make all of us here at digg.com rich. Seed me $100,000 dollars and I will send you my plan; send cash only.
As long as we get off our oil addiction crap then I’m happy!
http://shoppingoak.com/freebies
First: GREAT Article. I’ve been following Pickens for a long time and I’m glad he’s got Obama’s ear.
Second: Bill, your an idiot. The article didn’t note Pickens plan would cost $1 trillion. Instead the article stated, “Pickens has also promised to invest $1 trillion in the project”.
“Pickens has also promised to invest $1 trillion in the project”
hahahaa
HYdrogen & Electric vehicles are the logical end, but as you mentioned how long will it take to get a rollout of those vehicles from Detroit? Thats the point of the natural gas conversion. It buys that time. I would think that the electricity providers would do the same thing that cellular providers do, rent the space for the turbines while allowing the farmer to grow whatever crops they are comfortable with on the same land below?
It’s time to move forward one way or another.