Why Democrats Love the Pickens Plan
When anyone invests $300 million dollars into promoting alternative energy sources, the Democrats usually take notice. When that person is an oil tycoon, brother of a "Bush Pioneer", and someone who was a major contributor to the 2004 Swift Boat ads, that person gets an invitation from Nancy Pelosi to speak before the
His plan is grabbing support from both sides of the fence, but the Democrats in particular have embraced it. This is happening despite Pickens' recent criticism of Al Gore's plan. A full overview of his plan is at PickensPlan.com, but here are the sticking points that drive the plan:
The bulk of the plan is this: The central corridor in the United States is ripe for utilizing and harvesting wind for generating electricity. By harnessing this, the 22% of electricity that is currently being produced using natural gas can be completely replaced by wind energy. If we take the natural gas that was being used for electricity and convert it for use in transportation, the United States' dependency on foreign oil would be reduced by 38%, or $300,000,000,000 per year. Natural gas is cleaner, it's abundant in the United States, and wind is, for all intents and purposes, limitless. "This can all be accomplished in less than 10 years if you have the right leadership, and that's the key to it," Pickens said. "We have to have the right leadership and everybody in this country has to cooperate. We have to get on the same team, we have to march in the same direction, but we all know that we're going to get loose from this right here." He points to the chalkboard with his energy illustrations, then continues, "But that is a stranglehold on our country that we can't live with. It's that simple." This, in essence, is why the Democrats want to make him a poster-boy. They want their candidates, Barack Obama in particular, to champion this plan. It is an alternative to the drill and burn proposals that the Republicans are backing that, in theory, should yield the same if not better results from an economy perspective. It appeals to the green aspects of energy with its focus on wind being the primary source of the solution. Without wind, the plan doesn't work. Despite all of this, the primary reason the Democrats love the Pickens plan is the source. This time last year, he represented almost everything the Democratic party was against: big oil, small government, lowering taxes... standard GOP stances. Now, the man who worked against Al Gore and challenged John Kerry is now promoting something that is traditionally unconservative. T. Boone Pickens is fighting for the environment and fighting for alternatives to oil. Pelosi, Reed, and possibly Barack Obama are smiling at the prospects. "And this isn't going to solve this thing forever," Pickens said about his plan. "I'll be gone, but younger people are going to say 'Hey, look, we got in a bad spot and we got out,' What will happen is that you'll go to the electric car, you'll go to hydrogen, you'll go to something, but you're going to have 20 or 30 years to bridge to that point."
|
|









Meet T. Boone Pickens.

Comments
Anyone, who really knows some issue about online term paper should value your smashing topic. I do opine that the write my paper service should utilize that for the pre-written essays samples.
Well the windmills won't replace NG usage because due to wind irregularity and off peak delivery, it will need gas turbine backup generators that consume 40% of full power delivery just idling. Check out this interview with ol' pea Pickens:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/a-mighty-wind.html
Then check out these other sites to see how wind is not the free energy source they make it out to be, it's a consumer/taxpayer ripoff:
http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-all.php
http://www.aweo.org/faq.html
www.windaction.org/opinions
And spread the word, Pickens is gathering his army of minions to try and push his plan in congress at our expense.
Whether or not you have criticisms of this plan, I just have to say that seeing private citizens going to this depth for energy independence says a lot. Sure, profit might be the ultimate goal in this plan, but what's wrong with that? Profit/free enterprise powering energy independence sounds good to me!
--------------------------
I'd rather be camping!
People have cited some criticisms of the plan below and elsewhere, and while I'm sure there is merit to some of them, there are numerous people saying that we would have to convert our vehicles to CNG in order to take advantage of the new supplies of natural gas.
One possibility is to convert the natural gas directly into gasoline that could be used in all vehicles. Several companies are looking into low-cost technology to accomplish this. An example:
http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/stories/2007/04/09/story5...
1) US will continue to need more electricity
2) shutting down natural gas power plants will lower jobs as the jobs created after wind farm is complete to maintain wind farm are less than those needed to run plants.
3) while it will free up / lower cost of natural gas for vehicles world wide, how many natural gas vehicles will it fuel in the US?
4) how much will it help Joe American who doesn't have a natural gas car and can't afford one?
5) what is the minimum and maximum wind speed that those turbines are set to operate within. how often is the wind within those levels?
the problem must be attacked by multiple angles together.
1) more electric city buses / local transportation. more importantly, a cheap way to convert the current diesel city buses to electric.
2) a plan to give some sort of tax credit for building owners to put solar panels on the top of their buildings. I know there is a deal for home owners, is there one for business buildings? does it need to be increased to get more to take advantage of it?
3) garbage is an issue when it comes to water table contamination and space needed for the increasing amount of trash. I'd rather burn and create electricity and have to worry about sequestering the emissions than worry about the space my trash takes up and if it is getting into ground water.
4) how about the power of human waste? its gross, its something we have to deal with, and it can be used for energy too.
5) as this is mainly about getting us off of oil, while suggesting people give up gas cars for electric faces the same problem as asking them to get a natural gas car, stepping up hybrid and electric cars helps to.
The main thing with replacing gas guzzlers with something else is that fleet owners and government needs to start first. That means taxi services, bus services, rental vehicle services, trucking services and government vehicles. Fleet owners and government know where their vehicles normally operate and can make the necessary agreements to open up way points where needed to refuel / recharge their alternate fuel vehicles. those way points will allow for the general population to follow in their footsteps.
I am not against wind. I am against shutting down power plants when we are going to continue to need more power, especially with the future of plug-in vehicles. If we create an abundance of cheap electricity we will be able to handle the demand of the plug-in vehicles. If we decentralize our power production, we have less electricity wasted over power lines / power lines that aren't getting over burdened
Does anyone else have some of the same concerns about his plan and what actual impact it will have on Joe American?
Good article, but i wish it would have mentioned the numerous - and seemingly very strong - criticisms of the Pickens Plan
here's a good overview:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/8/15835/74508