Forget Wind. Pickens Turns Focus to Gas.

[joshcryer]

(...)

The man who made much of his fortune on oil, then in recent years turned to wind power, is now underplaying wind as a possible solution, while continuing to promote natural gas. Some of his stakes in companies would be more valuable if natural gas consumption were to rise.

Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, emitting fewer greenhouse gases than coal or oil. Many experts say they think it is underused as a power and transportation fuel, especially after new technologies recently unlocked huge reserves in shale gas fields across the country.

Proponents of natural gas took a back seat when the House of Representatives passed a climate bill last year, as lawmakers from coal-producing states dug in to keep coal as the nation’s principal fuel for electricity production. Natural gas may get a warmer hearing in the Senate, but its prospects there are also in doubt.

Skeptics say putting in the infrastructure for natural gas vehicles would be too expensive, and battery-powered electric cars and hybrids are a better alternative. And worries are growing that the techniques used to blast through shale rock to release gas could pollute drinking water.

More at link: http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/forget-wind-pickens-turns-focus-to-gas/

Pickens Shelves' Texas Wind Project:

Cheap natural gas, the lack of electricity-transmission lines and the lingering credit crunch have combined to take the shine off large-scale renewable-energy projects, and those factors led Mr. Pickens to halve his $2 billion wind-turbine order with General Electric Co., said a spokesman for Mr. Pickens's Mesa Power LP.

Mr. Pickens in May 2008 announced plans for the biggest wind farm in the U.S., by amount of installed megawatts, to be located in the Texas panhandle. But Tuesday he said he would cut his order with GE to 333 turbines from 667 machines and use them for wind farms in Canada and Minnesota.

That means the Pampa Wind Farm slated for north Texas—and postponed last summer until at least 2013—won't happen under current conditions.

"It's off the table," Mr. Pickens said Wednesday in a conference call. If Texas makes more investments in transmission lines to carry power from the remote wind farm to towns and cities, he said, "we'll be back."

Link here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575001290675508802.htmlp

I feel like the whole wind thing by T. Boone was simply to build out natural gas infrastructure.

[TxRider]

1. Really

"I feel like the whole wind thing by T. Boone was simply to build out natural gas infrastructure."

Then why is he still sinking a billion into wind turbines, even though he has no place in Texas he can build them as the grid isn't built out yet, and finding other places for them, even in a recession and with lower NG prices?

And stating he still intends to build out the panhandle wind farm when the grid is built out?

It's no secret the wind farms have outgrown the grid in Texas and the grid is playing catch up.

[wtmusic]

6. Guess what kind of power backs up those turbines

when the wind isn't blowing? Hint: it ain't coal.

[TxRider]

9. So?

Texas already gets over half it's power from natural gas, with 75% of our power generating capacity in natural gas.

Nothing new. Wind power here simply cuts into the use of NG we already use.

You can choose gas or coal, the other back up power source we use here.

[wtmusic]

10. Nothing but a scam to to fuel his own profits

The Pickens Plan will result in an increase of atmospheric carbon:

"With wind energy providing a large portion of the nation's electricity, the natural gas that is currently used to fuel power plants would be used instead as a fuel for thousands of vehicles. To increase efficiency, the Plan puts an emphasis on natural gas-burning fleets of trucks and buses.<3> Thus, the demand for petroleum products made from imported oil would be reduced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_Plan

Lest you think Pickens has only the interests of the planet at heart:

"In November 2008, California voters rejected a referendum by a 60% to 40% margin regarding natural gas. Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company<27> that was the primary backer of the November 2008 Proposition 10 on California's ballot. Much of the measure's sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives ($9.8 billion after interest) would have benefitted Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology.<28>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens#Natural_gas

[TxRider]

11. Any alternative

Has to pay for itself.

Nobody putting up any solar, wind, or biomass energy has only the interest of the planet at heart, they -all- want a profit.

Just like those building hybrid cars, electric cars, and energy efficient appliances -all- want a profit.

Profit motive is universal, our decision is simply who has the plan that reduces carbon the most, and make sure that organization is the one that gets the profit.

No matter what we choose for alternative energy, or reducing carbon, -someone- is going to profit from. The only question is how good is the plan and is there a better one that reduces carbon emissions quicker for less cost to the people.

Geez.

Pickens has a plan, that can reduce our massive outlays of cash to the middle east, get us a lot of wind power, and reduce out co2 output from transportation...

"According to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent."

If there are better plans out there lets go get em.

[wtmusic]

12. He's not reducing carbon.

He's creating a plan where he'll be providing more of the fuel that generates it.

Nuclear power / electric cars would reduce carbon the most, but T Boone doesn't own any uranium mines.

[TxRider]

13. I wouldn't bet on that

ROFL...

Adding a billion dollars of wind energy doesn't reduce carbon?

Switching to a fuel that produces 25% less C02 doesn't reduce carbon? A fuel any -current- car or truck can be converted to use in a day?

It's not like we aren't going to burn that NG anyway making electricity.

If you want to assign an ulterior motive to Pickens you don't have to make one up. It's out there clear as day.

He despises the massive transfer of wealth we are transferring to the middle east, he want's to cut that transfer of wealth to the middle east off.

As for nuclear, go add up how many reactors it would take to replace all coal and NG power, the mining facilities, processing facilities, security infrastructure, waste disposal facilities.

Then figure out the time and cost required to build out that system, replace our vehicle fleet, and get back to me.

Pickens has a faster plan, meant only to eliminate foreign oil, the wealth transfer it involves to the middle east, while lowering C02 emmisions significantly with tech and fuel we have now as we transfer to other sources of power over time.

[madokie]

14. You're making more sense here than most are

I'm finding as I read what you have to say. i say keep up the good work. TR. :hi:

[TxRider]

18. If you look

All these posts are about generally about the man.

Ad Hominem arguments against them man, not the plan.

Rarely will you see the actual objective merits of the plan examined or addressed. If any aspect of the plan is even mentioned, it's in a very biased manner to again support an ad hominem attack on the man.


I tend to be a little more objective. It could be satan or jesus presenting a plan and what I want to know is how good is the plan. What does it accomplish and how practical is it to implement compared to other plans presented.

I like his plan a lot just because it reduces our dependence on middle east oil, that alone would be a huge benefit.

And it is practical to some extent. We can convert a car or truck to NG in a day, many large vehicle fleets already do just for cost and emissions savings already. The conversion kits are here, now, and available.
We can string up windmills by the thousands as Texas has shown.

The hard parts of the plan are transmission lines and NG fueling stations, and Pickens is building those himself as he can.

To dismiss him offhand is short sighted IMO, point me to someone ready to do more and put his money where his mouth is?

Al Gore is also doing so, and stands to become a billionaire from alternative energy schemes he is investing in. I don't see people deriding him for profiting from his efforts.

[wtmusic]

20. Ah OK, you're objective and everyone else is subjective.

Good one. :rofl:

I show you objective evidence of how Pickens tried to corner the CA natgas market using taxpayer subsidies and you conveniently ignore it. Whatever.

More importantly: there is absolutely no possibility that wind will make enough of a difference in time. None.

"If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2

So as wind is proving itself to be a pie-in-the-sky, Pickens will not only be profiting from windmill downtime but from taxpayer subsidies as well as the thousands of natural gas vehicles spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. It's all part of The Plan.

[kristopher]

21. Do you REALLY consider that a valid objection to renewable energy?

REALLY???

[TxRider]

23. ROFL

I show you objective evidence of how Pickens tried to corner the CA natgas market using taxpayer subsidies and you conveniently ignore it. Whatever."

You obviously don't grasp the meaning of "corner the market", much less shown evidence of it. All you have shown is a proposition that would have funded incentives for solar power, high MPG cars and natural gas trucks. Nothing to do with cornering any market.

More importantly: there is absolutely no possibility that wind will make enough of a difference in time. None.

Picken's supports using nuclear plants, as well as solar and not only wind. Again you just don't know what your talking about.

If we are to stabilize the emission of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean? Tidal power can produce large amounts of energy, but can we find a new Severn estuary and build a barrage costing £9bn every five weeks?

Nuclear power, however, is a well tried and reliable source, whereas the alternatives listed by Anderson are mainly hope for the future and have yet to prove themselves. At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/128/2

So as wind is proving itself to be a pie-in-the-sky, Pickens will not only be profiting from windmill downtime but from taxpayer subsidies as well as the thousands of natural gas vehicles spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. It's all part of The Plan.

Again you obviously don't know what your talking about.

Here is a snip from the exact same page you quoted your so called "evidence" from...

"Pickens has been speaking out on the issue of peak oil, claiming that world oil production is about to enter a period of irrevocable decline. He has called for the construction of more nuclear power plants, the use of natural gas to power the country's transportation systems, and the promotion of alternative energy.

Now your fantasy of building a new nuclear plant per week may be doable, I very seriously doubt it. Not to mention the mining and processing and storage to go with them every week.

But now tell me about the up and coming plug in electric 18 wheel trucks... Show me plug in electric fleet delivery trucks running 2-300 mile routes carrying 2-5 tons of goods daily.

Pickens core plan is to move 18 wheel trucks and fleet vehicles to Natural gas from Diesel. And only as a stopgap we can accomplish now until we can develop something better.

Your just ad hominem attacking what you don't even know.

And doing it on the most ridiculous basis, that someone is going to make a profit. Nobody is going to make a massive profit building a new nuke plant per week? And selling a hundred million plug in electric cars? ROFL.

[wtmusic]

24. Once you learn what "ad hominem" means you may use it

without sounding like a pompous ass. Now that we have that out of the way:

Now your fantasy of building a new nuclear plant per week may be doable, I very seriously doubt it.

You doubt it, do you? In your frenzy to cut and paste my link you missed that that rate was nearly reached 27 years ago. Once again:

At the height of new nuclear construction in the 1980s, an average of 23 new nuclear reactors were being built each year, with a peak of 43 in 1983. A construction rate of one per week is therefore practicable.

If you think that Pickens' "calling" for more nuclear plants justifies his rape of federal subsidies, that's your call. If he's so keen that they're part of the picture, why isn't he investing in them? Hmm?

You may keep propping a halo on the head of a multibillionaire who would sell his own mother for the next billion, but he's gaming the public trust to put money in his own pocket. Last time I will post this:

Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company<27> that was the primary backer of the November 2008 Proposition 10 on California's ballot. Much of the measure's sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives ($9.8 billion after interest) would have benefitted Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology.

Aka "corner the market". :eyes:

[TxRider]

25. Yes I do doubt it

Why was the peak reached and why did it fall?

What makes you think the situation that made that peak rate fall has changed, that would allow that level to be reached again?

I don't think the reasons for the fall in the rate of new nuke plants has changed, and the industry would take quite a long time to retool and get up to speed even if it did. So I doubt we would be able to reach that rate again.

As for Pickens I'm putting no halo on his head, just not a pair of horns either. The only criticism you can level is he stands to make a profit. Just like Al Gore, just like Toyota, Just like GM, just like GE, or anyone else working in alternative energy.

As for your cornering the market BS...

"Pickens tried to corner the CA natgas market" Those are your words not mine.

He would have to own the natural gas market in California to corner the natural gas market, not just pick up subsidies for natural gas fueling stations, which anyone can simply construct. Pickens would have to own all the natural gas production to corner any market.

You could say he was cornering the market on natural gas fueling stations, but then he would have to be able to stop others from building them too, which is also not the case.

The attack is ad hominem, attacking the person, attacking the messenger, rather than the message itself.

The usage is absolutely correct.

Attacking one person for profit motive, when it's irrelevant to the issue as everyone with a plan or product is after profit is simply ridiculous.

[kristopher]

19. You mean renewable power and electric cars...

nuclear is a poor choice for maximum CO2 reductions.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[joshcryer]

8. Tax breaks and subsidies.

Profit above all.

[dkf]

2. Solar is the future.

Fossil fuels are old school.

[Nederland]

3. Agreed

Solar is the future--and always will be.

[dkf]

5. All new houses in Hawaii are required to have solar water heaters.

We have had ours ever since I can remember. It's our second one. We love it.

The guy at the top of our street bought some panels for electricity. We are moving in the right direction. Sad to see you aren't.

[wtmusic]

7. .

:rofl:

[Bitwit1234]

4. If they want a lot of gas they only need

to have the republicans and nuts like rush line up. This country would have enough to support us for 100 years.

[Javaman]

15. Meh, living in Texas, we all know that pickens was full of shit from the start.

It's never been about wind, it's always has been about gas and water rights. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

[NNadir]

16. Gas interests always use wind (and other so called "renewables") to push their dangerous

fossil fuel.

It's all Potemkin Village, which is, in fact what the entire "renewables will save us" scheme is.

Whether it's Amory Lovins, Gerhard Schroeder, Joschka Fischer, the goal is the same, to make the world "safe" for dangerous natural gas even though in a scientific, moral, environmental or economic sense gas cannot be made safe.

Note that there is NOT ONE of these gas greenwashers who has a plan to dispose of dangerous fossil fuel waste for eternity.

What's amazing to me is that ANYONE would take Pickens seriously in the first place.

[TxRider]

17. Umm, Pickens wants more nuclear power

And wants to use wind and natural gas in a transition and to remove our dependency on middle east oil.

You really do have no idea what you are talking about ever do you?

[NNadir]

22. Um, I couldn't care less about what Pickens says about anything.

My opinions on energy are not a function of what T. Boone Pickens says or doesn't say. It is true that I generally regard him as a liar, but this general position does not not mean that I have a blanket rejection of everything Pickens says.

This type of position, of which the anti-nukes are particularly inexpert at understanding is called, um, "critical thinking."

Unlike an anti-nuke, all of whom in my experience are notoriously bad thinkers, I can - should I so choose - avoid the logical fallacies of "http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html">Guilt by Association" and http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html">Appeal to Authority.

If, um, Dick Cheney says "peaches are tasty" that doesn't make them repulsive.

If Barack Obama says, "there is nothing that can be done about Dafur," that doesn't mean that doing something about Dafur is impossible.

Your personal remark about my level of understanding is, I assure you, greeted with a certain symmetry. I have never met a "renewables will save us" advocate who favors, as I do, an immediate phase out of all dangerous fossil fuels. I have never met any of them who I would regard as educated.

That doesn't by the way, mean that there isn't somewhere somehow one "renewables will save us" who doesn't favor the immediate phase out of dangerous fossil fuels. It just means that in my experience here, I know of zero examples of such a person.

Have a wonderful evening and weekend.

[hatrack]

26. Cue Bill Paxton: "Well, there's a switch!"

:eyes: