The Pickens Plan, Part Two: Partial Deconstruction
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 07.10.08
photo: Getty Images
All I have to say is ‘wow’. When I posted a video clip of T. Boone Pickens promoting his grand scheme for saving the US from energy dependency I promised commentary on it in a future post, but commenters have stolen most of my thunder in pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the plan. I guess that “post an intelligent and civil comment” button brought out the best in people. Kudos to TreeHugger readers. However their are some points still worth mentioning.
The Good: Pickens Bringing Us More Wind Power
The first is that, overlooking Pickens’ dealings with water rights and some other non-entirely savory political maneuvering, Pickens plan for helping the US generate 20% of its electricity from wind power is undeniably a good thing. It’s really part of the plan to use natural gas as a transportation fuel that seems ill conceived to me.
I’ll leave aside discussing the notion that a better long term solution to the boondoggle that is the US private transportation fetish/imperative might be building a (gasp) public transportation system, though I do believe that to be true.
Ditto climate change as the folks over at Climate Progress have pretty much got that angle covered—basically that running a car on natural gas doesn’t significantly reduce GHG gas emissions, and that natural gas is more efficiently used for electric generation than as a transport fuel.
Natural Gas Will Not Significantly Help US Energy Independence, Long Term
What I’d like everyone to consider is the energy independence angle. Substituting natural gas for petroleum may buy the US a measure of energy independence in the short term, but will not in the mid to long term. According to some researchers we are entering into a period where natural gas will start peaking , perhaps as early as 2010. Once that happens where will the US have to turn for natural gas? Some of the same regimes which Pickens wants to be rid of, plus some more: Russia, Algeria, Iran, just to name a few.
Bringing more wind power to the US energy mix is a great, and Pickens does deserve credit for that. However the part about natural gas needs to be reconsidered: There are better uses for natural gas, there are dirtier fuels to displace, it isn’t nearly as good a transportation fuel as is claimed, it won’t bring much greater energy independence, and it isn’t really a viable long term solution to our energy problems. It’s a band-aid at best.
T. Boone Pickens
Wind to Displace Natural Gas for Electricity, Natural Gas to Power Cars: The Pickens Plan
Water Pipeline Not Wind Power, Real Reason Pickens Can Build Transmission Lines
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Why Do Some States Have Significantly Lower Carbon Emissions Than Others?
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Are You at Risk From Wind Turbine Syndrome?
I personally applaud Picken's plan. At a time where the government and presidential candidates are not providing leadership, at least someone is stepping up with a plan - and it is a good one!
To the author: Faults with the plan aside, I want to note that for every unit of energy added to the system by Picken's plan, fossil fuels are being displaced. While we can nit and pick about what it is displacing and how, the intended results are "good". Find fault with that!
On to my next comment. We need similar efforts with other low impact sources of energy. Not just wind, not just solar and not just conservation either. We need an energy policy!
I visited the pickens website and read that the Natural gas could be produced locally in the US. This of course means less $ flowing out the US for oil. So even though it's better to use for electricity, it won't be easy to just change all coal plants to natural gas.
Another advantage of the use of natural gas is that you can mix hydrogen in it which at a 20% level creates a bettter boost in your engine. This can help the shift to hydrogen without have to make a giant investment in infrastructure all at once.
There is a public Forum for discussions about Pickens plan :
www.pickensenergyplan.com
Cheers.
Here is the thing about the Pickins Plan ... it sheds the big coal lobby of a target. This lets the wind get built without as much opposition.
Once Wind is built, and the long distance power lines are in place (HVDC?) then deciding what power to displace is a political choice for whomever is president in 2 years. Think carefully when you vote.
pickens stresses that nat gas for transport as a transition fuel until whatever future transport technology (probably electric) wins out. if we just targeted fleet operators with his natural gas strategy, then yes, a sizeable dent would be made in petroleum imports and it would lessen the amount of money sent over to america's enemies. it's a beginning and a good one.
Don't forget natural gas is mostly methane and is already produced as a biofuel from pigs, cows & landfills. There are natural methane producing microbes but they've been ignored in favor of ethanol so far.
The obvious redirect for natural gas IS public transportation because many new busses & other fleet vehicles are already natural gas many others can be converted when the engines are scheduled for a rebuild anyway. Large bus & truck engines are generally rebuilt already instead of being scrapped and they last much longer on natural gas than they do on diesel.
The big thing holding back all alternative fuels is the new infrastructure like stations, etc. But large fleet vehicles already use their own private stations & garages so it's most economical place to make the switch.
anything into oil - all garbage - all sewage solids etc. the infrastructure is already in place - just need to build high temp - high pressure plants to do the conversion
Regardless of how positive wind energy and natural gas are, the real issue with Boone's plan is that he has tied the right-of-way for his electric transmission lines, which run to the wind turbines, to a pipeline which will be used to deplete the water resources under the Texas Panhandle and beyond. The Ogalala Auquifer runs from Ogalala, NE to somewhere south of Lubbock, TX. Pickin's real plan is pump as much water out of that auquifer as he can and sell it to metropolitan areas down state for his own personal proffit. This is a water source which is heavily depended upon by close to 1,000,000 people in the Texas Panhandle alone. The area supplied by the auquifer is an area with an average rainfall of approximately 18 inches per year, contains very few lakes, and the rivers run dry. In most cases, this life sustaining source of water is the only source of water. This water should not be used for personal proffit as it necessary to the survival to all. It is not in the same catagory as other liquids pumped from the ground. The question we should be asking is wheter we can support a plan that depletes the natural resources necessary to sustain human and animal life for the benefit of Boone's pocket book?.
As an aside, I live 30 miles north of Boone's Mesa Vista ranch. He has lavish facilities, landscaped gates and throws parties for Dick Cheney and the gang on a regular basis. He continues to buy up land at an alarming rate. The ranch is currently in excess of 50,000 acres, he has first-right-of -refusal to purchas 100,000 more and not a single wind turbine is scheduled to be built on any of his land. Every thing Boone does is just for Boone. He cares only for himself and is willing to make close to 1,000,000 people go thirsty just to prove it.