The Eagle editorial board met Wednesday with oil man T. Boone Pickens (there’s a video excerpt on kansas.com). He went over his plan for reducing the $700 billion the U.S. spends importing oil. He wants to use wind turbines to replace much of the electricity being produced by natural gas. He then wants to use natural gas to fuel trucks, thereby reducing our need for imported oil.
Pickens said that there is no personal business motive behind his effort. Rather, he believes that America has a huge energy problem that will only get worse unless we take bold action.
Many people are still mad at Pickens for helping finance the Swift Boat ads against John Kerry. And there are plenty of doubts about his plan, particularly using natural gas for trucks. But give him credit for drawing attention to the need for a national energy strategy and to drastically reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
60 Comments
Oil to run the nation’s infraction is a small fraction of what the U.S. uses to power our energy needs.
The U.S. uses petroleum at a seven percent rate of oil consumed per year for infrastructure energy. An Additional 24 percent of the oil is used in making oil products (plastics, etc.)
Three percent of natural gas is used for energy transportation.
To switch to natural gas used for transportation, would require a huge personal and business expense especially those manufacturing industries who have their fortunes tied to gasoline or diesel engines.
91 percent of coal used is in areas of industrial, residential and commercial use and energy consumption.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html
2005 data: it was estimated that 40% of the nation’s energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. The remaining 14% was supplied by nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, and miscellaneous renewable energy sources.
In the above statistic about petroleum use, the majority use of petroleum is for transportation.
Wind turbine power addresses electrical grid questions, however it does not address how we are going to switch over to an electrically driven transportation system along with it.
Since the majority of our infrastructure energy needs is from products other than petroleum, wind turbines won’t have much of an impact on petroleum consumption for the most of us.
And, it’s almost a guarantee if petroleum use declines, the Oil States will dial down their production and the cost of gasoline will skyrocket to unaffordable amounts for the average consumer.
Amazing that taxpayers pay millions in taxes to hundreds of politicians, U.S Senators, Congressmen, and government experts. But, now, maverick corporate raider, T. Boone Pickens, steps up to the plate to offer a real solution to America’s idiotic dependence on the Middle East for energy resources.
We’d be better off if we took all that money he wants to spend on wind farms and spend it on nuke plants that can generate power 24-7.
JWink……………but, special interest groups (energy company lobbyists) influence those politicians. Those special interests do not want a solution, they want record profits at our expense. This issue is on TV as I type. $1.5 Trillion PROFIT!
Good ol’ Senator Roberts (R-oil) took $300,000 from oil companies and in return just voted against a bill that would provide millions in investments for renewable energy for Kansas. McCain too receives millions from oil companies and in return pushes for more drilling and doesn’t lift a finger for environmental programs.
T Boone Pickens comes to Kansas with his billions of dollars and promotes wind energy. Given the Kansas Republicans have been bribed with so much coal and oil money will his words fall on deaf ears or will Pickens need to buy off the Republicans too? So far common sense, billions in investment and thousands of new jobs aren’t enough to convince Republicans, only campaign checks will work.
http://www.blogforkansas.com/?p=61
Trust me, T.Boone Pickens isn’t in this for national pride or some elevated sense of energy consumption.
T.Boone Pickens wants to get on the controlling ground floor of controlling interest. If he can get the government to bare the bulk of the expense, more dollars in his pockets.
“T.Boone Pickens wants to get on the controlling ground floor of controlling interest. If he can get the government to bare the bulk of the expense, more dollars in his pockets.”
The taxpayer is picking up the tab for expanding transmission lines but due to decades of budget cuts due to Republican incompetence our nation’s infrastructure has fallen apart. A snowstorm in Wichita can cut power for weeks, a simple rainstorm can cause massive blackouts. Pickens is right to invest in diversity.
Pickens and Bush are both oil men. The difference is that Pickens is a SUCCESSFUL oil man.
“Pickens said that there is no personal business motive behind his effort.”
Right. And monkeys will fly out of my ass.
What he wants is subsidies for this little pie-in-the-sky scheme. Then he’ll sell it to investors eager to “get in on the ground floor,” run up the stock price, and sell out, pocketing millions.
He’s been down this road before. It may or may not work; I’m extremely skeptical of wind power as anything more than marginal, as far as the overall electrical grid.
“T.Boone Pickens wants to get on the controlling ground floor of controlling interest. If he can get the government to bare the bulk of the expense, more dollars in his pockets.”
*****
“Pickens said that there is no personal business motive behind his effort.”
Right. And monkeys will fly out of my ass.
*****
A rare event, both James and GMC are correct. Phillip and crew, you got taken in by a huckster who is wealthy for a reason. That reason is not looking out for the national interests of this country.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9558
In partial defense of the Eagle’s gullibility, if anyone has any kind of energy plan, they look good in contrast to GWBush who has no plan.
T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore do have one thing in common: They are BOTH involved in the energy debate for personal gain.
There is not, necessarily, anything wrong with that, but full and fair disclosure has not really been attempted, by either one of them.
Gore has made a great deal of money on this issue.
Pickens should at least admit that it is hard to drill for natural gas without producing at least a little bit of “liquid” (also known as oil!)
Let us not forget that Enron was a Natural Gas company. Let us not forget that Enron lobbied heavily against coal and nuclear and any other competition. Let us not forget that Enron Execs pretty much created the “carbon tax” or “cap and trade” or “carbon credit” idea.
Business is business.
We need tough, brutal, market place competition to see which energy source works best.
This is kind of like the fights between Thomas Edison and Westinghouse, AC Current vs DC Current.
We need to see some results first. Westinghouse hired Tesla, a man that Edison had mistreated. Tesla was digging ditches after he quit working for Edison, in disgust.
Then, Tesla wired the Chicago World’s fair, with AC current.
Edison was such a jerk about it, that Edison went to court to stop Tesla and Westinghouse from using the Edison patented light bulb.
So Tesla had to design his own bulb, with only a few months to go before the fair.
However, that world fair made International news.
Tesla and Westinghouse then won the battle. Alternating Current defeated Direct Current.
The Niagra Falls power station contract went to Westinghouse.
Let the market decide these things.
The Federal Government needs to avoid mandates and get out of the way.
Funny that you should mention Westinghouse and Niagra Falls. Do you forget the huge amount of pollution that Westinghouse poured into the Falls? Thankfully, due to public outcry the government regulated pollution and the Falls got cleaned up. But, as you admitted, you would be pleased with continual pollution.
Wyoming is getting $3 billion to build a massive wind farm which will export energy to other states.
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/30/2000-mw-wind-farm-will-send-power-from-wyoming-to-southern-california/
Too bad Republicans in Kansas are blocking billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of millions in energy export revenue. When your taxes get raised thank a Republican for preventing massive investment in the state.
Maggot
Kansas is building wind farms all over the place.
Maggot
You “greens” are pushing for more mercury, in our light bulbs.
You “greens” are pushing for more battery powered cars. Batteries are one of the hardest things for us to dispose of, environmentally.
Life is full of trade offs, Maggot.
Greens had us outlaw DDT. Millions have died from mosquitos and malaria, due to DDT being illegal.
Again, life is full of trade offs.
Maggot
Kansas is building wind farms all over the place.
Show me where Kansas has done anything to prevent wind power?
Fellow Bloggers
Notice that Maggot is against hydro-electric power.
On balance, the Niagra Falls project has been a huge environmental success.
How much coal was saved, due to Niagra CLEAN power?
Paul, when did I say I was against hydro-electric power? Oh yes, you just make sh!t up. Or is your argument that pollution produces electricity? In that case you are stupid beyond belief.
Let’s look at more of Paul’s lies:
“You “greens” are pushing for more mercury, in our light bulbs.”
You’ll never produce an example of this. CFL’s use less mercury than previous models and prevent less mercury emissions from coal plants due to the reduced power consumption.
“You “greens” are pushing for more battery powered cars. Batteries are one of the hardest things for us to dispose of, environmentally.”
Actually batteries are recyclable.
“Greens had us outlaw DDT. Millions have died from mosquitos and malaria, due to DDT being illegal.”
The use of DDT produced mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT (pesky evolution, try learning about it). So you’d still have the malaria from mosquitoes plus the cancer and exposure to the toxin.
You see, refuting Paul’s lies is simple. Had Paul taken the time to get an education maybe he too would be a godly liberal.
Paul whines:
“Kansas is building wind farms all over the place.”
The proposed 4,000 MW wind farm in Wyoming is larger than all the existing and proposed wind farms in Kansas through 2012.
There would be more wind turbines and solar panels if Kansas Republicans didn’t constantly oppose net metering laws like the majority of states have.
Maggot
“net metering” is only useful for small production wind energy.
You bring up “net metering” and the 4,000 MW Wyoming wind farm in the same argument?
They are totally different situations. One does not relate, in any way, to the other.
And maggot
The fact that something “can” be recyled does NOT, logically, mean that it WILL be recylced.
Battery disposal will be a problem, with electric cars.
You say that DDT didnt work anymore?
Why on EARTH would anyone use it, if it did not work anymore? Malaria is still one of the greatest killers on Earth.
The most dangerous thing, on Earth, is the mosquito, in terms of deaths caused by animals or insects.
Everything has a trade off.
Maggot, you seem to think that there is a “silver bullet” answer to every problem, and that makes you look childish.
Yes Paul, if you don’t recycle an aluminum can then it won’t get recycled. Anymore great words of wisdom you care to present?
Face it, you got pwnd again. Now, I gotta get back to a census form which is terribly more interesting than you.
“You “greens” are pushing for more mercury, in our light bulbs.”
The Hg in the light bulbs is much less than the Hg released by a coal plant powering the less efficient incandescent bulb.
The city buses in Tuscon run on compressed Natural Gas, Ive heard the police cars in Wichita do also, although I pretty sure they dont, seems to me that biodiesel would a underdeveloped source for fuel.
Ben
It is entirely possible to clean the mercury OUT of the coal, is it not?
So, how do we “clean” the mercury out of the expensive light bulbs you want us to use?
Hydrogen injection is part of the answer:
“To best describe how Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion works, we are providing this excerpt from a University Technical Report, written by Mr. George Vosper, P.Eng.;
…a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine’s air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won’t work. Such opinions, from engineers can’t be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning …the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense.
Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:
The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency”
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/hydrogeninjection.html
“It is entirely possible to clean the mercury OUT of the coal, is it not?”
In theory yes; in practice NO.
“So, how do we “clean” the mercury out of the expensive light bulbs you want us to use?”
By recycling them. Millions of times easier than your idea of cleaning the tons of coal.
Ever do any ‘coal-cleaning’ research Paul? It’s a very interesting field.
Paul, I’m assuming you don’t eat tuna or have any dental fillings. If you want to play it safe then don’t put any light bulbs in your mouth either.
Coal plants emit 48 tons of mercury each year.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/tech/cc_hg_control.html
Paul is worried about five milligrams in a light bulb.
Maggot and Ben seem to be in disagreement.
Maggot, your link makes clear that cleaning the mercury out of coal plant emissions is not only possible, it will cost 50% LESS than originally projected.
I switched to CFL light bulbs and pay less the 25 dollars on my electric bill, I find them not expensive at all. cost $20 to outfit all my lights and saved that much on my first bill and i haven’t replaced a bulb in a year and a half
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m guessing that not a single Eagle editor had the chutzpah to point out to Pickens that if Kerry had been elected president, we would have already been a lot further ahead on energy independence.
Hey, but you won, CONs.
Hotdamn, thanks to you, we endured four more years of President Idiot doing nothing on energy or the environment.
Congratulations.
My experience with CF’s has been less than great. They don’t last, at least to me, any more than incandesants (I’ve had to replace several), and the light is awful. In some cases, I’ve gone back to the old ones. My wife hates them.
I’ll probably stock up on the old ones, and try to hang on for a while. Maybe there’ll be a black market I can cash in on . . .
BTW – as far as I can tell, there are no CF’s for fixtures on a photosensing switch; i.e. outdoor lights that come on at dusk, especially those which brighten on motion and dim down without. Any suggestions for being “enviromentally conscious” in those cases?
And we’re to think Kerry would have been significantly different, why, exactly? There’s been no energy policy for 40 years, from administrations on either side of the aisle.
Not in disagreement at all Paul. The cost may be less than it once was but is still tremendously more than the cost of doing so with the bulbs. And I had said it was POSSIBLE to REDUCE Hg emissions. However, experience has taught me that it is not 100%.
GMC – not sure why you have had the problems. I have found that especially in locations like outside (driveway/porch) and stairs ceilings where changing them is a real pain in the butt they outlast incandescent by several times.
GMC – I vaguely recall seeing a new version that can be dimmed. Not sure though.
As for motion sensors etc the incandescent might still make sense.
My solar lights that automatically come on at dusk are LEDs which are also efficient. I see no reason why one switched that was could not be s atandard CF since they are ’single wattage’
“GMC70″ shares –
“…as far as I can tell…”
Well, damn.
If the rest of us had to depend on what “GMC70″ “can tell…,” we’d all have a law degree financed by box-tops and bottle caps and have a cushy government job that permits all-day blogging during office hours on the tax-payers’ dime.
“…there are no CF’s for fixtures on a photosensing switch….”
They’re available. They’re fairly-new technology and, so, more expensive. The major market is for traditional illumination. If you have a basic understanding of electronics, it’s simple to insert a capacitor into the photo-sensitive circuit which holds off juice to the bulb until there’s enough to activate the fluorescent action.
“GMC70″ lies –
“There’s been no energy policy for 40 years…”
Just what is (The Big) Dick Cheney hiding, then?
“And we’re to think Kerry would have been significantly different, why, exactly?”
Because he couldn’t have possibly been any worse than
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Even WITH expensive mercury controls coal emits MORE than the CF light bulbs.
“Table 3 in the ES&T paper shows that at 70% removal, including the cost of byproducts, the cost per pound of mercury removed ranges from $19,200 to $149,000, while the COE at 70% ranges from 0.90 to 3.92 mills/kWh. And 90% mercury removal wasn’t achieved at three of the plants, the utility officer points out. “What I’m seeing is really such a large range of control costs that it makes it difficult for managers or operators to find where one of their plants would fit in. It’s very hard to make a general statement of how much this will cost” at every plant, the utility representative says.”
Recycling everything produced would be ideal. But Wichita chooses to ignore that aspect of it. As for recycling fluorescents, like some states do, put a deposit on them. The mercury content of bulbs is currently being reduced. Reducing mercury in coal, while getting more cost effective, still does not reach the levels suited for life.
But there is more to coal fired plants than mercury:
Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons. First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials–mainly, uranium and thorium.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Not a good thing by any means.
But back on topic:
Whether or not Pickens is in it for the money, bringing energy independence to the forefront of the energy debate can only do good. I would rather leave our grandkids a place that doesn’t have to rely on foreign countries for their energy needs.
First off, cars can be made to run on energy not requiring any oil, other than grease, which can be sealed in lifetime bearings, etc. Energy for homes and business can come from Nuclear plants, wind and solar farms and even generated by wave action. It is possible to generate all the energy needed by this country without using oil.
I still am of the opinion superconductors could be developed that would conduct under any temperature extreme in this country. That would mean a 30% savings of all generated current. Cost? Hell yes, but better than paying billions overseas for energy we could be producing here.
JMW – in fact, a coal plant releases more radioactivity than a nuclear plant.
If you don’t consider waste to be a “release.”
Is the radioactivity harmful?
There is natural radioactivity in many areas of the country, and in many areas of the world.
Does the radioactivity released by coal really matter?
Since coal is naturally occuring, in so many areas of the country, arent those areas radioactive?
I know that there is natural radioactivity in many areas of the rocky mountains.
We can not have 100% safety, with any energy source. It is a balancing act.
Higher energy costs, alone, no matter the source, will KILL people.
People will freeze in the winter, People will die of heat exhaustion or heat stroke, in the summer.
Higher energy costs are deadly.
Do you think the oil men aren’t getting rich at your expense? Just look at their latest earnings. You’ll pay one way or the other. Let’s try the other for a while.
Of course Pickens bankrolling the swiftboaters does detract from his credibility, and on top of that he ‘welched’ on a bet.
Phantom
How about some “full and fair disclosure”??
You libs treat the honest profit of “oil men” and other energy suppliers like it is, some how “evil” -
Yet you treat your High Priest, Al Gore, as though he has no profit motive at all!
They’re doing no more or less (I don’t think), when they were making a small percentage of their current windfall profits.
And Phantom
The oil company profits are NOT out of line.
First, look how much the oil companies, themselves, are paying in corporate taxes.
Then, look how much the oil companies, themselves, are paying in State and Local taxes.
Then look at how much the oil company employees are paying in income taxes.
Then look at how much the investors in oil company stocks and bonds are paying, when their dividends and interest payments are taxed.
Also, look at how many shareholders each of those oil companies have.
Look at the average profit per share.
Look at the PE ratio, of the stock.
Look at the relative profitability of oil company stock over the last several years.
Oil company profits are not out of line. Not even a little bit. They have good years, they have bad years. They take the risk and the deserve the rewards.
Phantom
So what?
Investment profit is related to RISK!
Energy production is very, very risky.
You can work very, very hard, in the oil business, and still fail.
“You can work very, very hard, in the oil business, and still fail.
Or you can work very very little in the oil business, fail BADLY and become President of the United States when your energy buddies make you their front man.
Fossil fuels are for people with fossilized thinking.
econ posted July 31, 2008 at 10:31 pm
“Energy production is very, very risky.”
——–
Energy conservation is guaranteed, AND cheaper than new energy production.
Arbusto!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy
BJ
The hearse that takes your body to the grave, 50 years from now, will be powered by fossil fuels.
The lawnmower, the mows the grass around your grave, 50 years from now, will be powered by fossil fuels.
cosmos
We can and should do both.
Conservation is no substitute for new production.
The price of gas is showing the true color of American control freak liberalism.
You want to control the choices that people make.
I do not know anyone who is against alternative energy sources.
I know lots of people who think that wind and solar and nuclear and oil and gas should all be produced, to our maximum capacity.
It is you liberals who want to limit our choices.
If alternatives are, truly, the future, alternatives will win in the marketplace, on their own.
If alternatives are not the answer? No amount of political or governmental power can make alternatives work.
Paulie?
I’m just a bit more optimistic about the ingenuity of my country and the human race than you are.
In 50 years? The internal combustion gasoline powered engine will be a museum piece.
We can have you stuffed and placed next to the exibit.
Their new risk will be obsoletism.
#
Franklin
Posted July 31, 2008 at 10:51 pm | Permalink
cosmos
We can and should do both.
Conservation is no substitute for new production.
The price of gas is showing the true color of American control freak liberalism.
You want to control the choices that people make.
I do not know anyone who is against alternative energy sources.
I know lots of people who think that wind and solar and nuclear and oil and gas should all be produced, to our maximum capacity.
It is you liberals who want to limit our choices.
If alternatives are, truly, the future, alternatives will win in the marketplace, on their own.
If alternatives are not the answer? No amount of political or governmental power can make alternatives work.
======================================================
That last line says everything one needs to know about franklin and his minimalist mindset: He forgets to put into the equation the human mind, of which he is sadly lacking. Politics and governments have little to do with pushing alternate energy sources, except funding them. It will be driven people who understand the world will keep growing, and energy will be in short supply UNLESS we do something about it so future generations will have the energy necessary for a decent life.
You are dead wrong, idiot. In less than 15 years, that same hearse will be powered by alternate fuels, be it hydrogen or battery.
It’s people like you who fail to give the human mind credit for wanting to better their lives and the lives of future generations. While your motto may be drill here, drill now, it is also I want mine and I want it now, and to hell with my grandkids. You’re a loser and a charlatan, and a typical neo-conservative POS.
Regardless of whether GW is real or not, it’s the best thing that has happened. It forces us to think with a mindset that takes into account future generations, as well as present and future energy needs. With box-like thinking, franklin can’t see the forest for the trees, and his trees are made of oil. Mine are made of human ingenuity; that got us to the moon, and started the first hydrogen powered car. I like to think it can carry us anywhere we want to go, and people like franklin will just get run over in the process. Maybe there is a God after all.
Don’t mind ol’ Paul he’s a defeatist. He’d probably say there is no way we’d get off of whale oil to light our lamps. Just think if Iceland thought the way Paul did. They would never convert their nation’s energy source to geothermal and would still be importing tons and tons of coal. But they made the switch and they prospered as a result.
Paul wants America to fail.
I really liked your blog