Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

[GHal]

"Environment 360 Analysis - A Reality Check on the Pickens Energy Plan" by Vaclav Smil. Article appearing in 25Aug2008 "Environment 360," publication of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

<http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2058>

[freedml]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

Ok, so this articles points are 1) it isn't politically feasible for the federal government to do this 2) the numbers are off 3) it can't be achieved in a decade 4) it's unreliable

1. So what. He's not proposing that government do it, just get out of the way. He's building a chunk of it himself. If it's successful and profitable, others will follow.

2. So what if his projected plan will only meet 50% or 75% of our needs. Every piece of the puzzle gets us that much closer to the goals.

3. We put a man on the moon in 8 years but we can't put up a few thousand wind turbines and hook them up in 10 years? Car companies have CNG models available (one in the US, several in other countries). They could ramp-up production for the US market in a couple of years.

4. We will still need other sources for base load and peak demand. But the more wind power or solar generation we have available the more load can be taken off natural gas power generation. We can also 'bank' power by using excess power to pump water up into reservoirs

It doesn't have to all be done in 10 years, but the sooner we start the sooner we'll benefit. I bought 2 natural gas cars 4 years ago. I've been saving and 'greening' the whole time. Everyone thought I was a little crazy until gasoline hit $4 a gallon.


Here's the link again (wasn't parsed)...

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2058

[Steve]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

freedml,

I completely agree with you. Another glaring detail in the article was his calculation for power loss in transmission lines. He did not take into consideration inductance matching which is fundamental for transmission lines.

[Ben Lurkin]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

Well, the best kind of lies are the ones that contain some truth. And hence, the Pickens Plan. Certain aspects of it are good ideas, but overall, it's nothing more than a plan to make him money by using taxpayer funds (Prop. 10 in CA) to effectively corner the NG market. GREAT plan - use someone else's money to remove any risk and then reap all the benefits yourself.

I find it interesting he never mentions using nuclear energy for electricity. Perhaps it's because he's invested in 'alternative energy'?

Yep - nothing more than a scam.

[freedml]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

Why does the plan being in his self-interest make it a lie??? What does Pickens care if he makes another $1 billion? He can't possibly spend all that he has now.

I frankly don't care how much he makes if it's an economical way out of foreign oil dependency.

Nuclear is certainly another way to get us out of making electricity with Natural Gas, but the only way to increase our nuclear generation in the next 10 years would be for the heavens to open and nuclear plants to fall from the sky. France has it all over us on this one.

[Steve]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

France: 59
US: 104

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/npp-ww.htm

[freedml]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

My scorecard says:

France 78
US 19

(percentage of electricity generated from nuclear plants)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

[Mageever]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

France: 59
US: 104

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/npp-ww.htm

This number must be counting our nuke subs and aircraft carriers!

[Steve]

Re: Reality Check on Pickens Energy Plan

How about:

France 78%
US 19%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

The numbers I posted are supposed to be the total (but in reality, we all give our 104% - extra mile, extra effort, etc, etc) electricity generating power plants and not research / military nuclear power plants.