New twist for Pickens in energy independence fight

[Terri]

By ANDREW MIGA
Associated Press
January 14, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is adding a new wrinkle to his push for U.S. energy independence: monthly updates to remind Americans how much money they're paying for foreign oil.

Pickens, a billionaire who is spending $60 million on a high-profile campaign to boost the use of wind power and natural gas, said Tuesday the updates would be a yardstick for measuring the incoming Obama administration's progress on its goal of eliminating Middle East oil imports within a decade.

"You watch, we will elevate the interest in this," he said.

Pickens and environmental advocate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said oil-rich Middle East nations are using billions of U.S. energy dollars to build new schools, roads and airports while America's infrastructure crumbles. They made the comments during a briefing at the Capitol.

More

[oldjules]

I do not trust Pickens and I think he has invested in the wind turbine industry so has his agenda. The wind power costs 5 or 6 times what coal power does, but you can blend it it and raise the cost of power a fraction of that. The wind power is a good alternate ,but at the best can only supply about 10% of the power.

The natural gas he is invested in also and powering vehicles with natural gas has been around for a long time, for many years I used propane gas in all my vehicles and converted them myself. The truth about gas is that it is such a perfect fuel it is much in demand for many uses and the cost of it will remain high.

Some of Pickens agenda are worthwhile, but I think money and politics are a factor in his activity.

[Bigdog]

Pickens' primary goal is the promotion of his own financial holdings in natural gas, therefore a lot of his remarks must be carefully filtered. I will support any 'alternative energy' source that is technicaly and financialy viable. Wind, at the present time, does not quite fit that requirement but further refinement may make it so. Gas, as a transportation fuel, also has very expensive distribution and vehicle conversion costs - not insurmountable, but far from being a cure for our problems.

We must continue to develop alternative that work, but I see no short term (10 years? probably more) fix other than our domestic oil resources. In spite of the off the wall blahter of the nay-sayers, I heard an Alaskan oil expert saying ANWR oil could be flowing in the existing pipeline within 18 months of a goahead.

[RW]

The problem with "alternative sources," is as this article pointed out...the NIMBY syndrome..."Not In My Back Yard." People like the Kennedy's, who have the "compound" on Cape Cod, are all FOR wind farms, but not where THEY have to see them and navigate around them.

Drill here, please, and drill NOW!

[Texanna]

Most of you are aware of my opinion of TBP. He wants to use the government to enrich himself.

The problems with wind energy are multiple: lack of consistent availability (the wind on the High Plains blows at times when the demand for electricity is the lowest), lack of storage technology, lack of transmission lines. Public Utility Commission officials and electric companies agree that the MAXIMUM amount of transmission that could replaced is by wind generated electricity is 20%.

I believe it is important that our country diversify its energy portfolio. Look what is happening in Europe right now. However, we can't just embrace the latest fad or technology without taking a hard look at the consequences of that technology.

[Cynical Pete]

I would rather have Pickens enrich himself and other Americans than enriching terrorist oriented anti-American nations. The USA should be interested in any energy besides oil regardless of cost as long as it is produced domestically. No use in being self destructive.

[oldjules]

I would rather have Pickens enrich himself and other Americans than enriching terrorist oriented anti-American nations. The USA should be interested in any energy besides oil regardless of cost as long as it is produced domestically. No use in being self destructive.

This is true, but the powers that be make it very hard to get a coal plant licensed or a permit for a well.
A coal plant in China pollutes 60 or 70 times what a coal plant here does and more improvements are possible. On the other hand China must laugh at us every time they build another plant.
Energy produces wealth and jobs.
What about nuclear?

[thomas]

Keep your snake oil, Pickins. Wind farms and other fairy tales won't solve our problem; only serve to make you richer. Drill here, drill now. We can achieve energy independence and can do without your nonsense, you greedy *&^%$!
The Old Chief

[pjsolarz]

Nuclear is the way to go. With the cookie cutter plants that have been developed that have an incredibly safe operating record and when properly placed can avoid power interuptions with one or two plants taking over the energy demands while another plant is being serviced. They can put one in my back yard if they want.

[RW]

What about nuclear?

OJ, nuclear lost favor more than 20 years ago, simply because of the word, "nuclear." It conjures up visions of Chernobyl and other disasters.

Fact is...nuclear is safe and clean. The technology is there to use far less uranium than ever. Altho we can't deny technology, the Al Gores of this world would rather we live by candle light.