OT Pickens Plan

[DWCAP]

Clean tech that is renewable, continous, and CO2 free (yah yah, shipping and maintaince truck driving aside) without any waste to bury for 20000 years.

Solar
Wind
thermal
Ocean tide
Hydro

Add in some things like biogass (decomposting plant matter and animal wastes) which are a natural biproduct of our lives and basically akin to finding new revinue streams for used products, and we can generate alot of energy without generating really any more CO2.

The reason Pickens and his buddies want to transition to CNG is to keep the current energy buisness plan. A true hybrid is murder to Chevrons current buisness. They want another constant, dependable, and perpetually increasing revenue stream (natural population growth) for buisnesses. Plus, people fork over alot of money on overpriced crap when purchasing gas.

Imagine if we had a true plug in hybrid, where you could get say, 50-100 miles on a charge, before an efficient gasoline powered engine kicked in for the 15 times a year you actually needed it. Our oil supplies would last us hundreds of years, and these people would no longer be the uber rich of the world.

[TheBreeze]

I watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.

Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).

Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.

However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.

I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.html

With vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.

I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.

[TheBreeze]

I watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.

Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).

Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.

However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.

I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.html

With vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.

I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.

[TheBreeze]

I watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.

Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).

Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.

However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.

I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.html

With vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.

I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.

[TheBreeze]

I watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.

Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).

Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.

However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.

I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.html

With vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.

I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.

[TheBreeze]

I watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.

Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).

Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.

However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.

I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).

http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.html

With vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.

I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.

[speedingpullet]

I think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.

We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.

Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.

While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.

Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.

So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.

[speedingpullet]

I think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.

We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.

Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.

While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.

Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.

So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.

[speedingpullet]

I think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.

We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.

Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.

While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.

Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.

So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.

[speedingpullet]

I think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.

We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.

Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.

While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.

Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.

So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.

[speedingpullet]

I think comparing energy and transportation is comparing apples to oranges. They’re two sides of the same coin, but need differing technological methods.

We can’t wean ourselves off of imported oil in a stroke, but finding alternative scources to power our houses and buildings will take a load off. There’s plenty of innovation in the transport sector, let someone/something else take the lead in finding new power sources in that field.

Just because Wind power isn’t a single ‘magic bullet’ doesn’t mean its not a worthy and workable piece of the total energy’ jigsaw puzzle’ which will be our power sources in the coming decades.

While I don’t think that Mr Pickens would win my ‘guy I’d like to have a beer with’ award, I have to give him credit for thinking laterally – not something you see every day in the Oil Club. He has a lot of experience in the energy sector, and I’m glad that he’s thinking beyond ‘drill, drill, drill” and exploring other ways to keep the lights on.

Yes, while wind power, especially on the scale that Pickens is envisioning, will have some environmental effect, its still going have a lot less of an impact that the constant shipping, to and fro, of huge quantities of petroleum products.
Or the environmental and human impact of making yet more refineries.
Not to mention the ever present fear of tanker spills, refinery attacks, etc.. both natural and human, in correlation to the massive amount of the stuff we ship all over the world.

So, yeah, its a drop in the bucket – but at least its one drop among many. Enough people like Pickens and his ilk start thinking beyond oil, and the bucket will be full.

[an]

[quote=Portlock]I think AN’s comment about windmills affecting the global climate is, in part, a spiteful complaint and attempt at a similar comparison to the cry of environmentalists over the greenhouse effect, but from a fossil fuel advocate’s POV. Am I way off AN?[/quote]
Did you even read my whole post? I did say it’s a step in the right direction. I just think solar is better, but more expensive. Can you picture when solar get efficient enough that every household will be able to get enough power to run their house and their cars. You would not need any new land for any new “farms” because every house would be self sustained. Solar energy is already being wasted on the roof of houses and buildings anyways. We can also put solar farms in the desert, where there are very little wild life to start with.

[an]

[quote=Portlock]I think AN’s comment about windmills affecting the global climate is, in part, a spiteful complaint and attempt at a similar comparison to the cry of environmentalists over the greenhouse effect, but from a fossil fuel advocate’s POV. Am I way off AN?[/quote]
Did you even read my whole post? I did say it’s a step in the right direction. I just think solar is better, but more expensive. Can you picture when solar get efficient enough that every household will be able to get enough power to run their house and their cars. You would not need any new land for any new “farms” because every house would be self sustained. Solar energy is already being wasted on the roof of houses and buildings anyways. We can also put solar farms in the desert, where there are very little wild life to start with.

[an]

[quote=Portlock]I think AN’s comment about windmills affecting the global climate is, in part, a spiteful complaint and attempt at a similar comparison to the cry of environmentalists over the greenhouse effect, but from a fossil fuel advocate’s POV. Am I way off AN?[/quote]
Did you even read my whole post? I did say it’s a step in the right direction. I just think solar is better, but more expensive. Can you picture when solar get efficient enough that every household will be able to get enough power to run their house and their cars. You would not need any new land for any new “farms” because every house would be self sustained. Solar energy is already being wasted on the roof of houses and buildings anyways. We can also put solar farms in the desert, where there are very little wild life to start with.

[an]

[quote=Portlock]I think AN’s comment about windmills affecting the global climate is, in part, a spiteful complaint and attempt at a similar comparison to the cry of environmentalists over the greenhouse effect, but from a fossil fuel advocate’s POV. Am I way off AN?[/quote]
Did you even read my whole post? I did say it’s a step in the right direction. I just think solar is better, but more expensive. Can you picture when solar get efficient enough that every household will be able to get enough power to run their house and their cars. You would not need any new land for any new “farms” because every house would be self sustained. Solar energy is already being wasted on the roof of houses and buildings anyways. We can also put solar farms in the desert, where there are very little wild life to start with.

[Author]

Posts