<p>Part of the problem with US energy policy (or non energy policy) is that it tends to leave things like grains of dust blowing in the wind and see what lands. Pickens at least is proposing an alternative (and yes, there are problems with it) and saying we have to do something, and is a lot better then the fantasy of Palin et al with “Drill Baby Drill” as the way to gain energy independance and bring back “2 dollar a gallon gas” in the words of that other eminent genius, Bachmann. (Among other things, given rise in global demand, even assuming the US could find enough oil to meet its own needs, the price is going to be what it is; exxon, BP and Shell are not going to sell oil at 75 bucks a barrell if the going world price is 150, and unless we nationalize the oil companies, ain’t gonna happen). Plus a lot of the reserves they hype are often unproven, and often involve things like deepwater drilling (20,000 feet of water or 4 miles), or in oil shale and tar sands, that have their own problems including potentially being negative energy providers (take more energy to extract then they produce). </p>
<p>Natural gas has problems, we do have a lot of it, but again a lot of it is locked in shale layers and so forth, so it may be costly to get, and also has environmental questions with it as well that need to be answered. Plus while natural gas can be stored, if we are going to base our economy on it we would need massive investment in pipelines, CNG carriers and the like, in a distribution system, which would include retrofitting gas stations to supply gas (since it is like to be compressed and/or liquefied natural gas). It actually isn’t that hard to convert existing cars to natural gas usage and isn’t that expensive according to what I have read (1500-2000 bucks to retrofit). Plus there is the issue of having tanks of compressed gas in a car, gasoline is pretty dangerous stuff, but so is natural gas under pressure…BMW has cars that run natural gas, and they claim it doesn’t cost them much at all versus a gasoline powered car. </p>
<p>Pickens motivation is not necessarily altruistic (he owns lands in Texas that would be prime for renting out as windfarms, and he has bet a lot of money on natural gas exploration and production), but he also I think realizes the current system is a mess.</p>
<p>There are other methods of producing electricity, like passive solar, where instead of photovoltaics, you use mirrors to focus sunlight on a fluid that heats up and drives a turbine/dynamo. I have seen estimates that 40% of the electricity needs of the US could be generated using passive solar arrays in relatively small area of the mojave desert, for example.</p>
<p>One of the problems with things like this and wind power and geothermal is that we don’t have a national power grid. Power generated in Montana is in an area with relatively low density and demand, and we would need to get that power to places that need it, high density areas, cities and so forth, and the infrastructure doesn’t exist. Someone described our power grid as third world level, and they aren’t far off the mark, a lot of it is very old and much of it is primitive comparitively, and there is no ‘national grid’ per se, it is all regional and doesn’t work well. That would be a first step to allow alternatives to work. </p>
<p>I agree that prices going up on fossil fuels is going to drive new technology, but the problem is the current energy providers spend a lot more money on pr and lobbying then they do on alternate energy research, because they are loathe to invest in something, put in the capital spending, when they will make a ton of money as the price of oil and such continues to go up and politicians are not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Plus, of course, there is the fact that oil and fossil fuels are heavily subsidized to keep the price cheap, and that means alternatives are not competing on a fair and level playing ground. Oil companies gets huge tax breaks on the oil they produce, and the leases they pay for drilling on federal land are a joke comparitively, they pay very little. And then, too, the US military is de facto keeping the supply of oil flowing from the middle east, which is born by the taxpayer, if that were factored into the cost of oil it would no longer be as competitive. </p>
<p>And frankly I don’t think much will be done until it hits the crisis stage of things. Many of the tea party types version of energy policy is let the market decide, yet many of them run around complaining about 4 or 5 dollar a gallon gas set by that market, because, of course, it must be gouging <em>shaking head</em>. If oil goes to 150 or 200 a barrel, which it might as demand continues to soar, especially from India and China, they are going to find out what market forces are like. Pickens at least knows something the tea party types don’t, that the markets react in ways that often aren’t pleasant and do so chaotically.</p>
You should have come in with something heavier.</p>