August 27th, 2008 tkadom
When I first saw the commercial that Mr. Pickens put out regarding American energy independence, I was intrigued. So much so that I signed up for his site, where I got to read the plan first hand. Mr. Pickens essentially is advocating that we harness wind energy, and migrate our vehicles to natural gas. He cites studies which show the US midwest as the most abundant area in the world for harnessing wind energy. He cites the dependence on foreign oil and the fact that the US currently creates 98% of its own natural gas as reason enough for moving our vehicles from oil to natural gas.
I posted in his forum questioning the logic behind these choices, and my post was deleted. I believe it was a respectful post, and I wish that I had saved a copy, but in my experience energy activists rarely delete a post that questions their position, and spend their energy answering the questions instead. The act of deleting my post gave me a pretty good insight into the mentality of his campaign. "Snow the public, and silence the critics". My post may be deleted, but my questions still remain, and I will now hijack my beloved blog to give them a permanence which mr. Pickens can not control.
Leave alone for a moment mr. pickens own financial interests in this campaign, which are well documented
1) How does migrating to natural gas solve our energy crisis, when we know that natural gas is not a renewable resource, and that the number one natural gas reserve is in the middle east? (Source) (The US has only 3% of the worlds natural gas reserves)
2) Wind energy has numerous issues outside of distribution that have prevented its adoption. There is no conspiracy against Wind Power. If it made economic sense it would already be a reality. Nuclear power on the other hand is proven. If you are ready to make the tough decision, then advocate for nuclear power. It is the best option we have given current technology.
3) Assuming the advice of building the wind farms for generating electric power is followed, how does this reduce america’s dependence on oil. The US currently only uses oil for 2 percent of its electric power production. (Electricity generation is the component which mr. pickens plan addresses. There are no plans for industrial, residential, or commercial applications of wind power) Additionally, wind generation is sporadic and seasonal. People who advocate batteries for dampening the spikes in wind energy production neglect the seasonal components.
4) Why not advocate electric cars which can be powered by renewable energy as a replacement to our fossil fuel fleet? if the goal is energy independence, then move to a vehicle fleet that is not reliant on a non renewable resource which will be harvested outside of the united states. The answer as far as I can see is that Mr. Pickens is more interested in lining his own pockets than solving the energy problems of America. He is a majority shareholder of Clean Energy the largest supplier of natural gas for transportation in america and stands to gain substantially from a mandated adoption.
I have no problem with a billionare spending his own money to make more, and making the world a better place in the process. The problem is his proposal does not make the world a better place, nor does it make america a better place. We would still be dependent on non-renewable energy from abroad, and we would be no better off than we are today. The only difference would be california tax payers footing the bill for mr. pickens next fortune.
Tim
Posted in Random | 6 Comments »