Pickens Picking a Fight?

Are we headed for a partisan fight?

Not according to Mr. Pickens, Mr. Anonymous Blogger.

"Achieving energy independence and reducing our dependence on foreign oil are not partisan problems; they are American problems, and the Pickens New Energy Army is committed to supporting a national energy plan that will help save this nation and rebuild our economy," Pickens said.

- Anonymous Guest

Frankly, after reading through the last stimulus bill, it seems pretty clear to me that the current administration's #1 goal is cementing their future and buying as many pet projects as they can with our money.

I thought the last administration's spending was way over the top, but in less than two months we have out spent that by more than 4 times and there is talk of spending more and more.

Of all things I have seen this money earmarked for, Pickens' idea would have been an order of magnitude better use than what is on the books now and I have some reservations about Pickens' plan.

I can't, for the life of me, determine if this Congress conviens in Washington DC or Bob Evan's farm.

What are some of your reservations about The Pickens Plan, Anonymous Hero?

All of the press accounts I've read have been glowing - and (predictably) short on details.

I have questions on the actual logistics of the plan and making it work effectively. I really don't have time to get into all the details, but theory and practice are many times opposite ends of the stick.

and (predictably) short on details.

That's the part that bothers me. It's great to say "I've got this wonderful plan to reduce our oil consumption"; but if there aren't any real details, why would I support the idea?

There are some details, he's looking primarily to wind, then solar to supply the energy needed. But without a detailed analysis of how to accomplish that it's worthless. How many people have launched a thread on CR4 saying they have the answer to the energy problem, only to find out their solution is to hook the AC cord supplying the UPS into one of it's own outlets?! Free energy!

Another thing is the stated "jobs created" by these projects. I won't get into where they got their figures, let's just assume the figures are correct for a moment. None of these plans I have ever heard -ever- address the job losses in the existing industries that they are trying to replace. Let's wave our magic wand, and say we have completely eliminated the need for any gas station; where do all the people go who work in those gas stations? What about the real-estate value of those properties, the mortgages, and the cleanup required to decommission them? Without taking those factors into account, the figures are only half the story.

Neither do these plans deal with the other issues (batteries and their disposal...), inherent in these other technologies.

In short it just sound like another "As seen on TV" ad that says: "But wait, if you support my plan now you will recieve..."

I don't think your interpretation comports with the Pickens idea, which was to increase natural gas use for transportation, and replace coal/oil use for electricity with more and more wind/solar/natural gas...all in relative abundance. Now, as to distribution of transportation fuel (gas replacing gasoline) for personal/fleet transport, attendants will still be needed to some degree as gasoline stations augment or switch over to gas. Even if some net loss of gas station employment should occur (and there's not reason to assume there won't actually be a increase of gas station jobs), we are not really talking about a substantial blow to the labor force...as gas station work is, and would continue to be, unskilled - or at best low skilled - and lowly-paid - labor.

TexEx

I guess I am wrong, but from my reading of Pickens stuff, he says that we need to (1) produce more now, (2) use the technologies we have developed (natural gas vehicles, etc) for now, (3) invest in producing different (wind/solar) in the future and vehicles for using that.

His plan did go into some detail. But hey, what 'big plan' is EVER really fleshed out until folks are serious about implementation. It looks like his is more thought out than our current presidents, but again, they have only been 'working' on theirs for a few months. I would be interested in seeing some 'un-affiliated third party analysis' that is not politically or economically driven by any 'interested party'. I'm not holding my breath for that. No matter what it says, parties with something to gain or lose would pick on it to add FUD (fear, uncertanty, and doubt). ... But then I get pretty cynical.

He also mentioned using nuclear, but personally, that isn't 'green' and if we are going to bite the bullet, nuclear polutes, just differently than carbon based polution. -- another fight for another time.

I am no 'Pickens lover', but at this point in life, I think he is proposing what he thinks is 'right', whether it does anything for his pocket or not. I think it would, but that is just my guess.

There are many ways to save energy.I suggest that Energy Audits by qualified Auditors should be made compulsory for all industries.There is lot of wastage of energy in U.S. For example when I visited U.S I was surprised to see continuous flow of traffic, mostly big cars on the highways at any time in day or night. There were very few buses on the road.It showed that people preferred own vehicles for long drive instead travelling in the Greyhound buses.Small Fuel efficient cars should be encouraged.

I found that even school children were driving their own big cars to the schools. They should be encouraged to use school buses. Also there was practically no Public Transport systems except in the big towns. There is need for providing more buses or Metros in towns.Gone are the days when Gas was cheap and everyone could afford his own personal car. There is need for change in culture of owning own vehicle.That may be possible only if there is good Public Transport System.

Suresh Sharma.

I disagree. Water seeks its own level. In the US energy costs are not cheap. It stands to reason that a company will manage its resource costs wisely to keep profits as high as possible.

Companies already are looking for ways to save money. It is a self correcting problem.

In the US we generally travel greater distances than most other countries. Even going out of state, which many people frequently do, is like crossing into different countries in Europe.

We are also very independent people and like to have control of our own mobility, so buses are usually just inner city. Extending that service into areas outside large cities is way too costly.

Again, it is a self correcting problem. The cost of fuel determines what people drive and how. I am not in favor of artificially slanting the playing field to change people's driving habits.

By the way, gas is cheap right now. If Israel acts agains Iran that will change in a snap world wide.

That was specious reasoning at best. Interurban bus transportation was well established and common place in the US prior to the (car and gas company instigated) huge expansion of the private automobile fleet... which was made possible (at that time) by petroleum reserves in (seemingly) huge overabundance and very low gasoline prices. It was, in fact, the wasteful use of fuel for private travel (in cars as opposed to busses, in interstate big rigs as opposed to rail cars) that eventually led (too soon) to the present period of diminishing supply and expanding prices.

Also, considering the unknowns as relates to petro reserves and as to growth in demand (especially for transport), is remain an open question whether or not fuels are, even yet, under priced.

Water does in fact seek its own level, no doubt. But the actual question is: does it do so gradually (manage-ably) or in torrents.

Sadly, India - now building its own version of the US defense/national/interstate system(s) - will also go the same wasteful way when it comes to personal (rational or irrational) transportation. With growing middle class...and middle class simply will not be content to endure the hardships of Greyhound (interurban or interstate) busses. Rail...that's another matter...if it can be made affordable and run on schedule...and go fast.

Watch out for Pickens. Now that he's made his fortune in oil, he now wants to capitalize on 'global warming' pushing natural gas and wind energy.

My sentiments exactly. It would be extremely easy to convert to natural gas without significant impact to the existing economy. The same cars, distributions systems etc. The conversion to alternate sources (wind, solar, electric) will take some time and a large change in how we do things and the infrastructre to support them. A nice ultimate goal, however Mr. Pickins has a lot of natural gas that he would be more than happy to sell you in the mean time and would like the government to help him sell it before it becomes obsolete. Oh by the way, if natural gas becomes our standard then the ROI on all the rest of the technologies becomes much harder to justify thereby delaying their eventual implementation at least until the natural gas starts to be in short supply. (Just my thoughts)

Problem with most of the speculation presented in this thread is that the planet cannot much longer sustain the combustion of oil or natural gas(s)--if things are bad now, just what do you expect when the above mentioned Indians and Chinese seek their slice of the middle-class pie? The solution, if one wishes to use that word, is to generate electricity from renewable, non-combustion sources, then run everything on electricity...natural gas as a transportation fuel is almost as bad a dead-end as corn-based ethanol and other biofuels

read Thomas Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" and "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next Fifty Years Current Technologies"

Though I can not totally agree with your assumptions regarding the state of the planet or rather the cause, I do think that alternate sources of energy must be developed in order to sustain human life on the planet in something that resembles our current state and provides the energy needs to allow us to continue to grow to whatever potential we are capable of. I agree that electricity is the likely near-term solution in that you don't have to pick the source winner to implement it and we have all the tools in place to expand it into non traditional areas i.e. transportation. The challenge is NOT technology, it is culture, politics, and economics. Until we can make it sexy enough to make people want to change, until we can convince our government to redirect our money from support to oil companies and start investing otherwise, and until the innovators can make a profit, we will continue down the hydrocarbon road until the change is forced upon us by necessity.

(Just my thoughts)

Well said, Perplexed:

The challenge is NOT technology, it is culture, politics, and economics...until we can convince our government to redirect our money from support to oil companies and start investing otherwise...

Of course, in the U.S. there is a cabal of rightwing conservatives who have taken over the media, so accurate information on a mass public scale is hard to come by; climate deniers far outweigh those who believe otherwise, in terms of spreading their message anyway, even though in the scientific community they are outweighed 1000-to-one; Mainland China implemented a renewable energy mandate in 2006, such as was turned down by our Congress--They will meet or exceed 16% of their energy consumption from renewable resources by 2020 and are currently at 7%.

It will be interesting to see if the latest bailout of the domestic auto industry comes with a mandate to improve fuel economy. The business-as-usual faction in this country spend more money lobbying against regulations (or for regulations that benefit them) then it would cost to just meet the new standards--It seems conservatives view every expenditure of tax dollars that actually go to helping people a waste, but have no trouble with $1.5 trillion going to invade a country to steal its oil so a group of multinational energy companies can continue to reap record profits--the culture will not change when every change is denigrated as evidence of the "erosion of our precious freedoms" or "creeping socialism."

People need to understand that Capitalism is not about innovation, investment, competition, production or free markets--it is about PROFITS; it is largely by accident that anything in the way of innovation and efficiency result (unless forced by government regulation). Look at the auto industry--if it hadn't been for government regulation we would still be riding around in cars with tail fins but no seatbelts. It strikes me as odd that GM shareholders didn't start screaming when their stock hit $30/share! Conservatives moaned that bailout money was going toward ill-conceived bonuses, but moaned even louder when it was announced that the government would seek to recover that money through taxation. The chant was "these people have a contract" but they don't seem to care about that when demanding that Labor should take it in the shorts...

But there I go, off on another leftist communist rant--think I'll just go have a banana...

," in the U.S. there is a cabal of rightwing conservatives who have taken over the media,"

Really? Name one. Every news outlet, from TV, cable, and newspapers across the country leans so far the left, they've lost almost any sense of credibility. People have stopped buying rags like the New York Times for this very reason.

In fact, one can't use the term journalist to describe these propagandists.The news papers are doomed, they will all be gone soon. Unless of course these socialists rape us for some more money we haven't earned yet, (that's OK, where we leave off our kids and grandkids will be there to pick up the tab).

I think you are correct on every thing you cited except we will be picking up the tab even before our children and grandchildren get their chance at it.

It is mind boggling how much debt we are stacking up and the spending is just going up expoentially.

Really? Name one

Let's see--Rupert Murdoch/News Corp is the most obvious [owner of Fox and Fox News, The Wall Street Journal]--Sam Zell bankrupting the Tribune company of papers also comes to mind as another sign of the ENGINEERED contraction of media services--Then there's Clear Channel, owners of over 1200 radio stations and carrier of Premier syndication, home of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Reagan and most of the the rest of the rightwing bloviators--the local outlet here, KLBJ 590 AM, was crowing that Fox New Channel had six of the top ten cable "news" shows

Every news outlet, from TV, cable, and newspapers across the country leans so far the left, they've lost almost any sense of credibility

To be fair, that's not JOURNALISM, and the noise machine isn't about news or journalism [and hosts like Randi Rhodes and Tom Hartmann, to name two on the left, aren't journalists either] But I do find it interesting that the most useful journalism, exposing lies and injustices perpetrated by government and big business, seems to come from inveatigative reporters like Seymour Hersh, who has been exposing government lies and cover-ups since the My Lai massacre (and regardless of which party was in power) or Greg Palast, who uncovered the voting fraud in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. And that leaves who? The New York Times? The Washington Post? [oh yeah, that's right--Woodward and Bernstein, those tragically leftist reporters who exposed the Watergate scandal]

There is no mainstream news anymore, except perhaps for the AP wire services, which EVERYBODY uses...

"To be fair, that's not JOURNALISM"

Neither is Clear Channel.

If you you are trying to argue that there is not a preponderance of left leaning journalism in the US, you are fighting a very steep uphill battle, which you will not win.

Bananas are good for you. Lots of potassium. Sure is alot of politics going on for an engineering site!!! But I guess the subject is not truly an engineering topic and that politics will play a big part in the ultimate solution. That said I'd rather create a totally new energy technology based on banana peels than attempt to get any consensus on the political aspect of the problem. Way tooooo many variables.

(Just my Thoughts)

Ahh, what's in a good answer? An answer by any other name...

Will