<p>Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. </p>
<p>Note he claims we can replace 1/3. He is not just advocating wind power. He also states we can do this using this plan so that 10 years from now we will have accomplished this goal.</p>
<p>“We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity. Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel — reducing our dependence on foreign oil by more than one-third.”</p>
<p>Mercymom are you talking about this?</p>
<p>In the Texas panhandle, just north of Sweetwater, is the town of Pampa, where T. Boone Pickens’ Mesa Power is currently building the largest wind farm in the world. </p>
<p>At 4,000 megawatts — the equivalent combined output of four large coal-fire plants — the production of the completed Pampa facility will double the wind energy output of the United States.</p>
<p>AMom2 I’m not at all against the Venter plan, it sounds interesting. I’m just 100% unwilling to put all of our eggs in one basket. As mercymom says, we need all to do it all. I think 4 years is totally unrealistic.</p>
<p>collegemom16, I don’t remember the names in the article and I have recycled that paper, but what you mentioned may be the thing. There is also an offshore wind farm being built near Galveston as well. As far as cars being made to run on natural gas, Shell is also making what they call GTL, or gas-to-liquid fuel. I am not sure but I think it may work in regular cars, or it may work in flexfuel cars (most Fords now are flexfuel, or at least a lot of them are). We just got an ethanol/alternative fuel station, and we are supposed to get 3 more. Most, if not all, of the county vehicle fleet has been switched over to flexfuel and will be running on ethanol. There is a lot of sugarcane ethanol being produced in southeast Texas, south Louisiana and Florida. Even if it’s just enough to pump locally, it helps. If you keep waiting for a single silver bullet you will never solve the energy problem. And don’t hold your breath waiting for $2 gasoline to come back either.</p>
<p>Did you know that the Texas Grid is not hooked up the US Grid? Hooking up to the US grid will take some time and a whole lot of money. Transmission lines don’t go up overnight. </p>
<p>BTW, The local news did a story on just how green Green Mountain Energy Company really is. It surprised most of the users how little green energy they used. </p>
<p>Pickens website is not an independent or impartial source of information.</p>
<p>I am not asking for only one source of energy or energy plan. The US needs to looks at every viable solution including nuclear, thermal, solar, bio, etc.</p>
<p>CM16, if you were remotely familiar with what I have written about energy on this site, you’d understand my reasons of rejecting Pickens Plan. </p>
<p>There ARE people who have tried to expose our energy problems decades ago, and have offered plenty of solutions. Pickens is simply not one of those! In the wind industry, he is viewed as a Johny-come-lately and a profiteer. You should not compare his companies with a great number of companies that have been in this business for a long time. But that is not even the biggest issue. There is a world of difference between his current West Texas plans and what he is “proposing” in his Pickens Plan. Pickens’ Pampa Wind Project, which is expected to go online in 2011 is different from the massive infrastucture described in his “Plan.” As I wrote before, his wind energy plan as described in the Pickens Plan are overly simplistic rehashing for the utopians plans produced by organizations such as AWEA … decades ago. It takes someone with understanding of the United States wind energy to recognize that. As strange as it may sound, one can be a big supporter of alternative energy and still paint Pickens in the negative image he deserves. </p>
<p>As far as immediate plans, wind energy DOES play a role in the US, and its importance will continue to grow. The fact that it represents interruptible and non despatchable power is not a great issue, even if it is not baseload power. However, the impact of building 1,000 of windfarms has little impact on our importation of crude oil, as we do not generate much electricity with fuel oil. Wind energy is a wonderful complement to our sources of energy but it is NOT a replacement for transportation fuels in its direct application. While it is feasible to use wind energy in the production of hydrogen that could be used to replace gasoline, that is NOT what Pickens is proposing. His secondary focus is on gas … and for reasons that are pretty evident to him. </p>
<p>Our reality is that we should pursue many different alternatives ranging from better electric vehicles and better batteries to vehicles powered by hydrogen or various forms of biofuels. There are ways to increase the incentives for citizens to purchase cars that offer better mileage. Buying a hybrid vehicle SHOULD be made cheaper to the consumer via tax credits or tax rebates. Increasing the production and purchase of such cars would reduce our demand immediately. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, our solutions all require for us to accept to pay more for our energy consumption. This is something we should have done 10 years ago if not 20 years ago. We should have been paying $5.00 per gallon when the market was at $1.50 or $2.00 and use the extra funds to offer direct and tangible incentives to producers and consumers. I write this today but wrote it several years ago … right here! </p>
<p>Would YOU have accepted to pay $5.00 in 2003? Would YOU accept it today? Would you have accepted to pay 20% more for electricity generated by wind in 2003? Or … today?</p>
<p>“if you were remotely familiar with what I have written about energy on this site, you’d understand my reasons of rejecting Pickens Plan.”</p>
<p>So sorry xiggi. I have not followed your past posts.</p>
<p>“There ARE people who have tried to expose our energy problems decades ago, and have offered plenty of solutions.” </p>
<p>Nothing happened, they were ineffective. Our political leaders have been completely ineffective in this regard for 40 years. </p>
<p>Pickens is simply not one of those! In the wind industry, he is viewed as a Johny-come-lately and a profiteer. You should not compare his companies with a great number of companies that have been in this business for a long time. </p>
<p>Where are their plans? How are they marketing them to the public? What are they proposing to do right now? Can you link us. All I see you proposing is what we SHOULD have done. Once again what do you propose? What is the timeline? Where is the website with your plan? Tax rebates on hybrid cars is not a plan.</p>
<p>“While it is feasible to use wind energy in the production of hydrogen that could be used to replace gasoline, that is NOT what Pickens is proposing. His secondary focus is on gas … and for reasons that are pretty evident to him.”</p>
<p>Could you please explain this with more detail?</p>
<p>CM16, are you expecting me to create a website and write a plan to solve our energy problems? Are you expecting me provide you links that amount to a crash course in Energy 101? </p>
<p>Even Wikipedia offers good overviews. For instance, “Texas Windfarms” is pretty accurate and timely. </p>
<p>No need to reinvent the wheel. Why not let google be your friend? Between government research labs and private companies, there are plenty of good sites to transform a lacking understanding into a pretty good basis.</p>
<p>“At the end of the day, our solutions all require for us to accept to pay more for our energy consumption. This is something we should have done 10 years ago if not 20 years ago. We should have been paying $5.00 per gallon when the market was at $1.50 or $2.00 and use the extra funds to offer direct and tangible incentives to producers and consumers.”</p>
<p>Wholeheartedly agree. But it doesn’t work if the “extra funds” go to a bunch of oil robber barons or to the Saudis so they can loan it to us back at interest. You need to “capture” the extra and redirect it (something the Saudis have learned to do in their economy, and we could learn something from them).</p>
<p>No xiggi you miss my point completely. You are very quick to offer criticisms, but you offer no solutions. T Boone Pickens IS offering a solution with a timeline and he is using aggressive marketing to get it out to the public. All the great ideas in the world without effective and aggressive marketing and a real plan will come to exactly what we have now, NOTHING. Once again what is your solution? What is your plan? Your criticism of Picken’s plan will fall on deaf ears if you have nothing better to offer.</p>
<p>On NPR they just said MIT has invented something that may one day allow each homeowner to use solar power during the day and at night a hydrogen fuel cell, thus making each individual house energy independent. Sweet.</p>
<p>^Thanks! One other thing about the Texas grid that was not mentioned is that Texas doesn’t have to hookup to the US grid. So all that hot air from Texas may not blow your way! Really!</p>
<p>“We think it’s going to lower costs, lower pollution and create jobs. We think that for every $3 invested, we’ll probably see about an $8 reduction in electric costs,” said Tom Smith, the state director.</p>
<p>Exactly! Spending all your time focusong on how things don’t work never results in a solution.</p>
<p>Picken’s plans is genius. His approach is essentialy this:
First, build wind farms in sufficient number to let electric utilities replace their need to burn natural gas to create electricity. Second, take the natural gas that would otherwise have been burned and use it to fuel cars. </p>
<p>The effect of Picken’s plan is to stop the outflow of billions of dollars to foreign countries many of whom are hostile to American.</p>
<p>If you consider the recent discoveries of natural gas in varous shales in America, we could make a substantial dent in the use of oil in transportation by substituting natural gas. </p>
<p>Natural gas is already widely transmitted throughout American. If you have natural gas heat etc. you can convert your garage into a fueling station for your own natural gas vehicle. </p>
<p>Natural gas cars are not new. Approximately one third of all cars in Argentina run on natural gas. Approximately one quarter of all cars in Italy run on natural gas. </p>
<p>If American could have a quarter of our cars running on natural gas, the price of gasoline would plummet. </p>
<p>It is unfortunate politians have not adopted Picken’s plan.</p>
<p>Pickens is a little bit like Trump. He’ll have some interesting ideas from time to time, he has an engaging way of presenting them, and he likes the limelight. </p>
<p>He’s also someone that, when you’re around him, you ought to hold onto your wallet.</p>
<p>Xiggi, I’m not clear on what you’re talking about. I can see that a number of wind energy projects have been built in Texas, but I find no reference to a “bag of losses.” Specifics?</p>
<p>Kluge, Pickens’ energy ventures lost a bundle in the past two-three years. That part is easy to google … all it takes is Pickens loses 2 billion, or something along those lines. </p>
<p>For the specific comments about wind energy and Picken’s vision, take a look at the original post and my reply. I called Pickens a ruthless profiteer and “tried” to explain that his vision for wind energy in Texas was more a ploy than a play, especially when considering the role played by his attempted piracy of water rights in Texas. It also reeked of desperation and wishful thinking. His ploy was more inspired by Texas luminaries such as Bunker Hunt (read silver) or Tom Hicks than by any love for a sounder environmental future!</p>
<p>Regarding specific losses, Pickens made a huge bet when ordering his 670 turbines from GE. Once ordered, the turbines need to be delivered at a site, and … paid for. In a market that is red hot, people have to secure a place in the manufacturing pipeline. As long as the market remains hot, one can unload turbines in the market. In a market brought to its knees by disappearing financing, there is no place to turn. Finding a home for several billion dollars of GE machines is not an easy task. </p>
<p>Lastly, please do not consider my views on Pickens’ wind energy in Texas as an attack on the industry. People like Pickens are giving the renewable industries a black eye. Pickens tried to make a quick buck by cornering a market and hoping to find national support for his remaining bets. For a better view, read about the Vestas or Enercon companies. That is where the real story is told … one machine at a time. </p>
<p>The problem with making huge bets is that they do not always work. As I said, the same people who won a few with Mesa when oil surged to irrational levels probably lost a bundle in the “encore” performance. Again, something that was highly predictable in 2008!</p>
<p>The main problem with the pickens plans is the fact that the wind turbines would be located in places that are not close to cities, which need the energy, thus transmission lines are necessary. Also wind isnt that effective of an energy source, given current technology compared to fossil fuels. The reason why is because wind power is intermittent, and thus isn’t a viable alternative, or even supplement. Of course, technology could change, but how much the wind blows doesn’t change. Also even if we started to make progress on switching from oil to natl gas it wouldn’t really affect oil prices. There is surging demand in China and the other BRIC countries. The Picken’s plan is completely delusional.</p>
<p>I’ve never seen any significant change in policies that wasn’t pushed by someone who had some skin in the game. For example, the current push to tax internet sales, i.e. Amazon, which I support, wouldn’t have a chance except that it is in WalMart’s financial interest. That makes me think it will be done. So the fact that Pickens had a personal profit motive in mind would pretty much be a given to me. And that he lost money by going long on turbines just as the market went south - well, that’s why there’s a market. Gotta be some losers along with the winners.</p>
<p>As to Picken’s plan, I had anticipated that there might be a problem with the transmission lines. To me, that’s the weak point of all of the new mega-generation projects, regardless of the energy source.</p>