The Pickens Plan

I agree, great point and post. This guy just makes good sence to me and would really like to view his plan without judging his motive.

I personally do not want to get our oil I would like for it to stay right where it is.

Old news this has been done here since
1995

Texas Wind Power Projecthttp://www.infinitepower.org/images/hrcol2.gif

Owner:

General Land Office & Lower Colorado River Authority
Size: 35 MWLocation: Culberson County, TexasInstalled:1995 The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) teamed with the General Land Office GLO) and private industry to develop this commercial wind power plant, the first in Texas. The Texas Wind Power Project, located in Culberson County in West Texas, has 112 Kenetech 33M-VS wind turbines capable of generating 35 megawatts of electricity – enough to power 12,000 to 15,000 homes. Since the ribbon-cutting for the Texas Wind Power Project in 1995, the Texas’ Permanent School Fund earned more than $750.000 from it. The project is expected to earn more than $3 million for the PSF and create $300 million in increased economic activity over the 25-year lease period. For additional information see this** GLO web page.**

I was out in Roscoe-Sweetwater on the 5th

Critique of Picken’s Plan

Pt. 1

Pt. 2

PG&E’s CEO view

I’m all for giving a fair shot but let;s not jump in until this has been fully vetted.

Once the gov, T. Boone’s and others get their minds right and wrapped around hemp all will be groovy once again just like in the sixties

cloth
medicine
oil
euphoria

looks better then some of the BS we/they’re doing now

I am to understand he has a lot, and i mean a lot of natural gas holdings as well, which means he stands to make a **** load of money both coming and going if there is any serious efforts to convert many of our exisiting fossel fuel energy plants to natural gas. I am in agreement about anytime there has to be government subsidies someone is going to get filthy rich at the taxpayers expense. All ideas are worthy of consideration but like Reagan used to say about the Russians…Trust but verify.

At 80 years old I’m not sure money would be his motivation but there may be something else going on and time may tell.

OK lets do that

I remember Ethanol being sold as a panacea 20 years ago and it hasn’t turned out too well.

I am very skeptical of new and unproven ideas especially the ones that rely heavily on government subsidies.

Are there any proven or unproven that don’t?

Good point but my perspective is even if a new technology wants subsidies to start they should should stop in a reasonable amount of time.

Even when they planned to stop the wind mill subsidies they were revived again.

Maybe we we should all apply for government handouts so we can provide home inspections to those who can’t “afford” them.

Now there’s a thought! :cool: :wink:

We can call it “The Larson Plan” :mrgreen:

Thought for a minute I just smoked some.:mrgreen: http://naihc.org/hemp :lol:

You mean this isn’t…](*,)

http://www.naihc.org/Images/NAIHC_round3.gif

Wonder what they get for member bennies? :shock: :freaked-: :bug:

More thoughts on The Pickens Plan

Slim Pickins From T. Boone Pickens
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
**
Energy Policy:** A world-famous Texas oilman says our energy answer lies in alternative energy. While tilting at windmills, he says that we can’t drill our way to energy bliss. So why do the Russians keep drilling?


Pickens says the “stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada is called the ‘Saudi Arabia of the Wind’ . . . we have the greatest wind reserves in the world.” Perhaps we do, at least in the halls of the drill-nothing Congress.

Well,we’re also the Saudi Arabia of coal, but Pickens mentions coal not at all. The U.S. has 27% of the world’s recoverable coal. A ton of coal can generate two barrels of synthetic oil.

On that basis, as the New York Times pointed out a few years ago, "the coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia."

This technology is in use today in South Africa, where three coal-liquefying plants produce about 150,000 barrels of oil a day. At the above conversion rate, America’s coal reserves are equivalent to 20 times our proven crude oil reserves. Liquefied coal could solve our liquid energy needs for the next two centuries.

Another massive domestic energy reserve Pickens does not mention is shale oil. Another Energy Department report says the Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, deep inside Pickens’ wind tunnel, contains as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in porous rock close to the surface. Two trillion barrels is seven times the Saudi reserves.
The problem with wind and solar — other than getting the power from where it is generated to where it is needed, which requires transmission lines the environmentalists won’t accept, even if they and the wind farms could be built in time — are their intermittence. More


Now please tell me because I seem to have forgotten,

What’s the hurry to developed alternative energy from Wind, Solar, and Bio-fuels?

200 years worth and we need these new and unproven technologies? Really?

Can you even imagine what will be available in 200 years? I can’t?:roll:

You would not wait 24 hrs to see what develops. I hope you enjoy $10.00 a gallon in gas. Me I am going to give this guy a fair shake before I start in with his plan.

Frank, it was timely information pertinent to the subject.

I’m sorry if that offends you in some way.

Pickens’ Plan will stand or fall on it’s own merits but let;s now imagine it’s the only plan out there.

I am not offended. http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-the_new_power_jobs-449

Sorry Frank, my misunderstanding.

Nothing but a thing.

It would be nice to create lots of jobs and at the same time use a good clean energy source.

This is not the way to go friends. ML
**
T. Boone Pickens is hard-wired for subsidies**
Posted: July 23, 2008, 7:30 PM by Jeff White Jerry Taylor, wind energy

    ***If wind energy were a sensible economic investment, it would not need the lavish subsidies Pickens seeks ***

By Jerry Taylor

Virtually every claim made by T. Boone Pickens to justify the lavish subsidies he is seeking for his wind energy investments is flat wrong.
First, oil imports are not the cause of high gasoline prices. On the contrary, oil imports serve to keep gasoline prices down. After all, we import oil for a reason — it’s cheaper than the domestic alternative. If we were to restrict our energy diet to energy produced in the United States, it would make domestic energy producers (like Mr. Pickens) far richer and energy consumers (the rest of us) far poorer, and GDP would be reduced as well. While one can understand why Mr. Pickens is attracted to the idea of “energy independence,” for the rest of us, keeping the country open to imported goods is pro-consumer, whether we’re talking about oil, steel, textiles or athletic shoes.

Second, we are no more forced to rely on the “goodwill” of foreign oil producers when we shop for petroleum than we are forced to rely on the “goodwill” of supermarkets when we shop for eggs and milk. Oil producers export crude oil because it’s a great way to make money — and for many, the only way to make money. And once that oil is in the global marketplace, market actors, not oil producers, dictate where it goes. Hence, we are betting on producer greed — which is a pretty safe bet.

Third, if wind energy were a sensible economic investment, it would not need the lavish federal and state subsidies already in place or the additional largesse sought after by Mr. Pickens. Likewise, if compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles are an economically sensible alternative to conventional gasoline-powered vehicles, then no government “master plan” is necessary to deliver them to market. Price signals will induce investors to invest and consumers to buy, without government having to lift a finger. The same goes for all the other energy-related R&D Mr. Pickens would like the taxpayer to dole out. If that R&D is promising, it will be pursued, whether government subsidizes it or not.

Fourth, if reducing our carbon footprint is the goal, then the most direct and efficient means of reducing that footprint is to impose a tax on carbon emissions and then leave it to the market to sort out how to most efficiently order affairs under those new prices. Maybe it will mean windmills and CNG, but maybe not. Perhaps it will mean more nuclear power, new hydrogen-powered fuel cells, “clean” coal, the emergence of cellulosic ethanol, battery-powered cars or hybrids — or a continuation of the existing energy base but less consumption as a consequence.

Of course, if the market were to go into any of those directions, Mr. Pickens would be out a lot of money, which is probably why he wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things he’s investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in the course of doing so. I wish Mr. Pickens well in his wind energy business, but I see no reason why taxpayers, ratepayers or consumers ought to be forced to sacrifice in order to fatten his already ample bank account.

*Financia Post
Jerry Taylor is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. *