Boone Pickens’ Energy Crusade: Prophet or Con Man? |
7 Comments |
| By Michael d'Estries in Energy, Wind Power | July 31, 2008 | |
The following is a guest post by Jay Hakes –former head of the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy
T. Boone Pickens has broadcast his way right into the middle of a presidential election debate about United States energy policy. Americans are upset about $4 a gallon gasoline, and the iconoclastic oilman has bought a lot of air time to tell us what he thinks about the situation.
Pickens’ views have injected some fresh air into the public dialogue, and most of his ideas stand up pretty well to the scrutiny of serious energy analysis. But we must be careful not to replace one set of problems with another.
His ads and web site warn about the money sucked out of the American economy by its negative balance of trade in energy. Pickens has identified a problem as least as big as high prices at the pump. The energy trade deficit is larger than our trade imbalance with China and far more costly than the war in Iraq. Moreover, much of the money ends up in the hands of America’s enemies. Though some laissez-faire economists find this situation acceptable, it’s hard to argue that our dependence on foreign oil can be sustained at current levels over the long haul without further damage to the dollar and the general U.S. economy.
A vigorous American Petroleum Institute advertising campaign, President Bush, and presidential candidate John McCain imply we can drill our way out of our dependence on foreign oil. Pickens disagrees. Again, score one for the man living in our television screens. Offshore oil drilling is expensive and unlikely to lower oil prices or have a dramatic impact on the world oil market. We shouldn’t rule out some carefully monitored expansion of lands available for exploration and development. But opening up more offshore areas in a country that has been drilling away since 1859 won’t be a game changer in an expanding world oil market.
Pickens emphasizes renewable energy, particularly wind power, as a solution to our energy predicament. Wind supplies a significant share of energy in some European countries and is growing here. We should expand the role it plays in electric generation.
But overemphasis on wind can distract attention from solar power and biofuels (not derived from food products), which offer greater potential for further technical development.
The idea that we should use government subsidies to get wind and other renewables into the market overlooks a big problem. The amount of fuel we consume is so large that subsidies will have unacceptable budget impacts for any fuel that achieves broad usage. The key policy here is making sure the fossil fuels pay their own way for external costs related to national security and the environment.
We should also adopt a national renewable electric generation standard that mandates a greater share for these clean and domestic sources, as many states have already done. Last year, the U.S. Senate came very close to breaking a filibuster against such a standard. After what has transpired since that vote, the Congress should quickly adopt the standard next year with tougher provisions than in the 2007 version.
Pickens correctly points out that expanded use of wind and solar, while intermittent, can save significant amounts of natural gas, the most environmentally benign of our fossil fuels and largely available from domestic sources. He then advocates that natural gas resulting from this displacement be used to power America’s vehicles. This would cut the need for foreign oil, reduce pollution and has been technically doable for a long time.
But this is the fork in the road where Pickens makes the wrong turn. Until we figure out how to sequester the carbon emissions from coal-based electricity or add significantly to the number of nuclear plants, we face a critical need for natural gas to reduce the use of coal. After having ignored the problems of greenhouse gases and global warming for decades, our nation cannot add more coal plants without risking great damage to our climate. There’s not enough gas to take on bigger roles for both transportation and electricity.
Fortunately, there are other alternatives for powering our cars and trucks that will work as well or better than natural gas. First and foremost, we need to demand more efficient vehicles. The Energy Independence and Security Act passed last year mandates that the 25 miles per gallon currently required for cars and light trucks be raised to 35 mpg by the year 2020. But we should not have much trouble raising the standard by a mile and a half a year. That get’s us to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2040.
Ethanol produced from corn kernels is not worth the federal subsidies currently provided. But we should be utilizing liquid fuels from other plant sources, such as corn stover (the waste materials left over), bagasse from sugar cane, wood chips, and switchgrass. Even more exciting, but perhaps further down the road, is biofuel produced from algae. We also have the option of plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, which are very attractive economically, especially if recharging takes place at night when the demand on the electric grid is low. In other words, we can take the bold action Pickens calls for and still reserve natural gas for electric generation.
The Texan who wants to end our addiction to foreign oil may not have every detail right, but we should be grateful that he’s calling for some mighty big solutions to some mighty big problems.
____________
From 1993 to 2000, Jay Hakes headed the Energy Information Administration, the data and analytic arm of the U.S. Department of Energy. He has just published A Declaration of Energy Independence: How Freedom from Foreign Oil Can Improve National Security, Our Economy, and the Environment (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
Loading ...
Shreela said,
FYI: “Pickens is in the planning stages of a $1.5 billion initiative to pump billions of gallons of water from an ancient aquifer beneath the Texas Panhandle and build pipelines to ship them to thirsty cities such as Dallas.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4275059.html?nav=RSS20
BUT, the Texas Panhandle is suffering from drought right now: http://ocolly.com/2008/06/23/panhandle-drought-worsens-draws-dust-bowl-comparison/
So I’m not so sure what to think of this man, since he’s going to take water from a drought-stricken place to $ell to other places. It’s my opinion that it’s kinda creepy.
Shreela said,
Oh #*&$! I linked the Oklahoma Panhandle’s drought instead of Texas’ Panhandle. Both Panhandles are next to each other, and that page came up in a “Texas Panhandle drought” search. Oops!
Here’s an article talking about Texas’s Panhandle and wheat crops that mentions drought:
http://www.kwtx.com/weather/headlines/19547659.html
Richard Millington said,
This is a really good post. I can’t claim to be an expert on the details but the broad theories, especially some an oil man, might well be along the right lines. I’m a big fan about the potential of wind power – especially turbines placed off-shore.
Solar said,
I agree that turning attention to wind power, would much reduce the focus on Solar and Geothermal Energy Usage, Solar Energy is so widely available to us, and already a lot of its application in the form of Solar Panels, Solar Water Heating Systems, Solar Lighting, etc are available to us in the market. I think increasing awareness of these products not only on commercial platform, but on household platform can help in energy conservation. So many federal, local utility, state tax rebates, credits and incentives are already available to local public to promote the usage of renewable energy. Information available on http://www.dsireusa.org
Solar Panels as an example, intially came in large bulky ugly looking design, but today are available in light weight, architecturally pleasing design, with various trim colors to choose from to match the roof. Examples available on view on http://www.powerpartnerssolar.com Added Tax incentives are making them even more affordable than ever.
In Conclusion, creating awareness and promoting the already existing renewable energy products (solar) would be much a profitable deal than actually going and investing in a whole new research on win power. The potential exists in using wind power, but to bring a quick upstart just revealing these hidden solar products can be of great help to our current situation needs.
Tom Garven said,
Hi All:
Well here goes – I have never met Pickens but his plan does appear to have some merit. Of course I also like solar, bio-mass, geothermal, high efficiency AC and Heat Pumps, and more conservations. I also like more fuel efficient vehicles, electric and plug-in hybrids and more rail and public transportation. I also believe that nuclear will be here for maybe another 20 years but find it hard to believe that we will spend 6-15 billion to build some new plants. In fact it is my opinion that if we are really serious about becoming energy independent we will need all of the above solutions. Even oil has its place at least for the next 10 to maybe 20 years. While they have made some progress on making plastics and hundreds of other products out of soybeans we aren’t there yet.
So here’s the deal as I see it. As a homeowner I would like to have photovoltaic panels on my rood and will when the price hits $1.00/watt. I would love to have a plug-in electric car but don’t have the money for that. I am into conservation and have added extra insulation to my home, replaced all my windows with low-E units and have installed a high efficiency heat pump. Oh yes all my lights are CF’s. Also got rid of one of my gas guzzlers.
So what’s my point? Every individual is different – different in what they can do or afford to do. We as individuals must make the choice to live green because it is not only good for the planet but also good for our wallets. I like the way Glenn Beck put it the other day on CNN Headline News; “we need to do what’s right for the country”. Hopefully we will acknowledge and praise the efforts of everyone who does a few of the above strategies or at least the strategies they can afford to do.
So the Pickens plan – Install wind and replace some motor vehicle fuels with compressed natural gas. Seems like a step in the right direction to me so lets all say thank you Mr. Pickens for putting your money where your mouth is and doing what appears to be good for the environment and good for the country.
So here is how I see it. If we all don’t start cheering the success of someone who is trying to make a difference we will never become energy independent. Is the Pickens plan a viable plan? Seems like it is to me. Is it the only plan that will work – of course not but it is a step in the right direction. Will he make money at it of course he will. Do I care – heck no because he is doing something I can not afford to do so for that reason and that reason alone I salute Mr. Pickens.
Tom Garven
Lake Havasu City, AZ
tomgarven@hotmail.com
Rick Price said,
Solar is still not cost-effective for use on a large scale, without subsidies. The latest iteration, PV film costs about $40/Sf to save about $.70 annually at $.10 per kw/Hr. Wind farms work best away from urban centers and power is lost in transmission. Short term, we need nuclear power… and should never have stopped building nuke plants. Geothermal heat pumps are cost effective and compare favorably with standard HVAC units in residential applications. The new drilling technology makes the vertical closed loop systems practical for urban commercial buildings if an energy field is available for existing construction and can be added to most new construction. The largest geo-thermal building in the US, The Galt house in Louisville, KY uses the Ohio River for its “energy field”.(vintage 1980) Geo-thermal is really using stored solar energy in the earth as it is needed ilo generating DC electricity from solar panels that must be used, stored in batteries, or sold back to the grid. Power transmission is as outmoded and inefficient as internal combustion engines… eventually we need hydrogen cells in each home, community or commercial building to service our electrical needs. BTW, the vast majority of the 70% of oil we import comes from #1 Canada and #2 Mexico and some of our domestic production is actually exported. PS Burning bio-fuels of any kind including ethanol still contributes to GH gases. PPS Conservation of all of our resources is necessary and relatively painless at this point,,, we all need to use less. Storage centers to store our unused junk is still a growth industry in the US and we are all getting fat from our excesses.
Phil Manke said,
Not much mention here of solar thermal. Much more return for the investment than PV, which tops out at near 20%. Large moneyed interests are pushing PV tech, while another honest industry offers dollar a watt return on thermal heat collectors for water heating near 75% efficiency.. Much home and business costs are involved in heating, and much of that is water. If one could invest and lay off that cost to solar, wouldn’t that make sense? I admit that PV is fascinating and sparky, but is not nearly the most efficient at thermal provision since the conversion to hot water offers low losses from solar energy. It’s just that there aren’t a group of large investors promoting it. It’s very basic technology and it works very well. Does anyone have the real need to complain about the high cost of PV or wind power if they haven’t layed off their heating costs to solar thermal???