Which Energy Independence Plan is Better — T. Boone Pickens, or Google? Part 1

October 27, 2008

T. Boone Pickens has been putting up so many commercials to advertise his energy independence plan that his crinkly, octogenarian visage is becoming nearly as familiar as the GEICO cavemen or Max, the annoying talking Volkswagen Beetle who startles car shoppers in VW commercials. So what is Pickens, who became the 369th richest person on the planet primarily by drilling for oil and taking over other oil companies (or attempting to do so, and driving up the price of his stock holdings), doing promoting wind power as an alternative to oil? Well, let’s let him do the talking.

From his Web site, here’s more detail on his argument for wind power, and the specifics of his plan, which he boasts could turn the U.S. into the “Saudi Arabia of wind power":

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains States are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

Today's wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.

Wind power currently accounts for 48 billion kWh of electricity a year in the United States — enough to serve more than 4.5 million households. That is still only about 1% of current demand, but the potential of wind is much greater.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.

But wind is only part of Pickens’ prescription. He also wants the nation’s cars, trucks and buses to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) instead of gasoline. According to U.S. Department of Energy estimates,  the nation has abundant natural gas reserves, so Pickens’ plan, at least in theory, would not only reduce drivers’ fuel costs to as little as $1 per gallon, but also would largely eliminate the need to import oil.

A few caveats here. Pickens’ motivation for promoting his plan may not be entirely selfless patriotism. As Mother Earth News reports, a company founded by Pickens, Mesa Power LLP, is in the process of building a $10 billion wind farm near Pampa, Texas, that, when completed in 2014, will be the world’s biggest wind-power facility. He also is the founder of Clean Energy Fuels, North America’s biggest provider of CNG and liquefied natural gas for vehicles. So he would stand to make a few bucks off all this. On the other hand, there isn’t necessarily something wrong with that, at least if one believes in Adam Smith’s invisible hand, which holds that an individual pursuing his own economic self-interest tends to benefit the societal good as well.

One reservation I would have about Pickens’ plan is that it’s very narrowly focused, relying completely upon just two energy sources. He doesn’t do anything to promote solar or geothermal, and he doesn’t say anything about nuclear power (a possible solution that we’ve discussed previously in this blog).  And he doesn’t propose any measures to promote energy conservation. Is that a smart strategy? Or would it be wiser to spread the investment around, and attack the problem from a variety of angles?

But my biggest problem with Pickens’ plan is that it wouldn’t do enough to address the looming problem of climate change. His massive array of wind-power farms would reduce by about 40 percent the nation’s dependence upon coal-fired electricity, which is a source of about a third of our carbon emissions. That’s great, but in itself, the plan wouldn’t be enough to replace coal completely. Converting trucks from diesel fuel to CNG would reduce carbon emissions, but only by 23 percent. For cars, the switch from gasoline to CNG would cut emissions by 30 percent. (These are Pickens’ own figures.)

So, what do you think? Express your opinion below. Next week, we’ll look at a less-publicized but equally intriguing energy plan proposed by another seemingly unlikely player — Internet giant Google.   

Comments

[Caffeine Driven Stress Magnet]

I like the idea of building massive wind farms, but I'm against Pickens proposal for converting cars and trucks to natural gas, because that wouldn't do much to combat global warming. Also, it would be a distraction from what we really need to do, which is to switch to plug-in electric vehicles charged by electricity from renewable sources such as wind or solar. Pickens owns a company that sells natural gas, so it's no coincidence that he's proposing that as the solution.

[Debbie Schultz]

What about building offshore wind farms? That would work great for Florida.

[Get your butt off the couch next Tuesday and vote!!!]

T. Boone Pickens energy plan is good, but the only way we are going to make real progress on alternative energy is if we elect SEN. BARACK OBAMA president next tuesday. Go back and read the previous blogs on this subject. Its not even close. OBAMA is only the candidtate of CHANGE.

[Patrick Kiger]

Here's an interesting piece of information that I just came across. According to CNN's web sitehttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/ad.spending/index.html , T. Boone Pickens has spent $21.5 million to air those TV spots promoting his energy program.

[T. Boone Pickens for President!]

I think Pickens' plan is great. We have to achieve energy independence first, before we can start working on global warming. Wind farms will actually make it easier to have electric cars, because we'll have cheaper electricity as a result, since power plants won't have to buy coal to burn.

[Tom Ralston]

I don't trust Boone Pickens. In the 1980s he was a corporate raider who probably cost a lot of workers in the oil industry their jobs. I think the main reason he's proposing this plan is that he stands to make a lot of money from it.

[Puzzler]

I think wind power is a big part of the answer, but we have to tap into sources such as solar and geothermal as well. Also, we currently waste enormous amounts of energy, and that has to end. I've seen retail stores, for example, that leave the front door wide open in the summer while they're running the air conditioning full blast inside. And the highways are full of cars with just the drivers inside. We just can't live like that anymore.

[Skeptic]

In Pickens' defense, he at least has some experience in the energy field, while Google has none.

[Not Richy Rich]

The Pickens plan will most certainly make money. He would not be doing it if he wouldnt be.

He can admit or not but he is one of "Them".

The few and privileged elite in this World who stear the course of human suffering and misery to make a profit and keep you slaves.

Buckminster Fuller pushed the Idea of world wide power grids running from country to country around the globe using all forms of renewable energy sources.

Tidal, Wind, Solar, and Geothermal. All tied together to provide cheap electric power to 2nd and 3rd world countries as well as Europe/Asia and the America's.

The url for this plan is as follows, http://www.animatedsoftware.com/geni/rh2000ge.htm

Banking and Energy companies are already getting in on the ground floor and will soon control even this simple and basic right to make you pay for something that is acquired for free like Oil and Natural Gas.

[Hondo]

Buckminster Fuller's idea sounds really interesting, but how would you transmit energy efficiently from one continent to another in a global grid? Not saying it can't be done, but it sounds challenging from a technological standpoint.

[Mothra]

When Rachel Maddow interviewed Obama the other night, he mentioned the importance of building a smart grid, and even talked about having plug-in hybrids' batteries transmitting energy back into the grid when they're not in use. He seems to have a very sophisticated understanding of energy issues, unlike the superficial blather that we hear from Sarah Palin.

[Sun Ming Ming]

I am an immigrant from Taiwan who is now a US citizen. I am voting for Obama because he is best for fixing our economy and solving the energy problem. Also we need to end the war in Iraq and restore our place in the world.

[Brandon]

I believe that our only hope is to use all of our valuable roof space and go solar. Companies like Nano solar can produce a cheep panel. As well Nano solar can create the machine that they use to create their panels for about 1.6M. The low cost of this production method would make it perfect for energy companies, government and individuals to invest in. I figure that for 1.6M a machine most major cities ( About 250,000 POP or better) can afford to purchase this manufacturing technology while creating jobs and driving down energy use. I do believe that wind power is relevant however it isn't as viable for the average home owner. Therefore our solar production needs to increase and be viable for the average working family. A full system should cost no more than 8000$ installed. 10000$ with energy storage capabilities.

Well that's enough ranting for me.

[Vivid Violet]

Commenting on the ones who suggest we all need battery powered cars; so where is all of THAT (plug-in) energy going to come from? Will we have enough electricity for those kinds of cars? Then what do we do with the batteries when they run dry, or quit? Lots of things to consider. I understand those car batteries are very expensive to replace.

[lim yc]

energy independence is the way to go and you have to consider how to go about it. you have to consider a changed lifestyle would have an impact on this energy independence as one of the greatest challenges. driving a car with only the driver all the time is not one of them. no demand equals no consumption -- energy independence. reducing demand can and will delay the capital expenditure for outlay of the electrical generation equipment. secondly, the 'black gold' took many millions of years to be produced and now gone in 1 month ! it is too precious for this purpose.

some of the alternative energy schemes like solar, wind, tide and geothermal can be implemented at the local scale but the demand and supply cycles do not reconcile and this imbalance in demand would have to met by supply through the grid. we also know that solar and wind can be a pain as farming this energy can be quite cranky -- cloudy/rainy day and very little solar electricity or a calm day and no wind energy.

much thought and work needs to be put in. i look forward to this utopia.

check this out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm

[Ron Bengtson]

The Pickens plan has merit. He is not claiming that it is a total or final solution -- he is saying that his plan is a bridge to the final solution. The Pickens "bridge" can be built today, and would eliminate 30 percent of USA oil dependence. His plan would use existing technology that is tried and proven.
http://www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com

[John Morris]

Thank you very good and a healthy writing. I will definitely keep track of posts and the occasional visit. Looking forward to reading your next post.