T. Boone's plan

[rrshock]

His interview with ABC news on Good Morning America

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5330139&page=1

His own website.

http://pickensplan.com/

To sum it up, he wants to switch from using natural gas to produce energy to wind power to fill that gap. Then he wants to use the natural gas to run planes, trains, trucks and automobiles, thus cutting the foreign oil usage.

Sounds like a good plan to me. He's willing to put up his own money for some of this. He's an oilman and is suggesting this too.

[dregn]

This plan has already been laid out to many in our legislature and top government officials by other scientist along with T. Boone. So far it has fallen on deaf ears with no acceptance.

[rrshock]

This plan has already been laid out to many in our legislature and top government officials by other scientist along with T. Boone. So far it has fallen on deaf ears with no acceptance.

Has anyone really pushed it though? If he is willing to put his money where his mouth is and push this, it might do better than some scientists trying to push it.

[BenWSU]

You`ll pay $3k to convert your automobile to run on natural gas???

Current price of natural gas is $1.59 a gallon according to Pickens.

[Maggie]

WSJ Op-Ed by TBP

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[RoyalShock]

Or, just wait fot the air-powered car to hit showrooms:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19

(There's also some YouTube videos of it.)

Then there's Aptera's Typ-1 that should hopefully make it's way to the midwest in the next few years:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237853.html?series=19

[rjl]

One of the beauties of this plan is that it's technically possible to convert existing vehicles over to natural gas--expensive, but possible--so it doesn't inherently require a complete reset of all our transportation.

According to this article in Time...

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html?cnn=yes

... if drilling was allowed today in the ANWR and where it's currently prohibited offshore, it would be until the year 2027 before its potential is fully realized. (At which time, incidentally, it would only drop the price of gas by less than 4 cents a gallon.)

Instead of feeding the habit, maybe we should spend our resources trying to figure out how to use less oil by then? By the year 2027, a 10 year old car (what even most poor people could probably afford) will be a model year 2017. Making changes starting now will have a far more profound impact on the future than just doing what we've been doing because it's what's been done.

[RoyalShock]

Like he said, there is no silver bullet, which tells me that his is a medium-term solution. At some point, the supplies of natural gas and uranium will begin to dwindle, just like oil. The question is, how long will that be?

Regardless, it's still a good plan. It will buy us a lot of time as new technogies emerge and existing/emerging ones are refined.

[rayc]

RoyalShock:
Like he said, there is no silver bullet, which tells me that his is a medium-term solution.

Actually, I think wind as well as solar are long term solutions, not short nor even medium term. There are probably no short term energy solutions (if short term is defined as less than 20 years), and 20 years from now we will still need oil, a lot of it. We need to drill and increase refinery capacity asap, but not at the exclusion of developing alternative energy sources.

T. Boone’s plan has so many technical problems to overcome that I have to wonder what his real plan is. I’m quite sure it involves him making a lot of money regardless of the success or failure of the project. I suspect he figured if Al Gore could pull his crap off why not join the parade and make some money at it.

All my humble opinion, of course.

[RoyalShock]

Wind and solar are long-term, renewable sources, but from what I've read, they aren't expected to ever provide a majority of our energy needs. They are just two pieces to the puzzle.

[Maggie]

I tend not to doubt TBP's motivations with regard to this issue. The man is pushing 80 years old and is putting up his own money to fund this project (which I believe to be a distinct difference between him and Al Gore). As far as I am concerned, he can "knock himself out" and if he happens to make a profit as a result of his efforts – good for him. Besides, I believe utilizing the private sector is the most efficient way to solve this problem.

[rayc]

Maggie:
I tend not to doubt TBP's motivations with regard to this issue. The man is pushing 80 years old and is putting up his own money to fund this project (which I believe to be a distinct difference between him and Al Gore). As far as I am concerned, he can "knock himself out" and if he happens to make a profit as a result of his efforts – good for him. Besides, I believe utilizing the private sector is the most efficient way to solve this problem.

I was perhaps a bit cynical on his motives, then again is the majority his money, or OPM? I doubt we will know, but I wish him well on the project anyway. He is very knowledgeable in many areas of the energy industry, but the electrical utility aspect is obviously not one of them. The solution, as envisioned in the article, will not happen in his nor in any of our grandchildren’s lifetimes but the economic activity is helpful for that area and any power actually produced can be used.

I may come off as a bit skeptical of wind and solar as a solution, but I’m actually a big proponent of both. The problem is that their viability is totally dependent on the successful development of energy storage technologies. In a nutshell, a reliable source of energy must be available, on demand, 8760 hours of the year. If not, a reliable generator and source of fuel for that generator will have to be a big part of the solution. This is true whether you are looking at wind and solar on a large scale as in T. Boone’s dream, or as a point of use system that I would prefer. With energy storage either way is viable, without energy storage neither is. Point of use is probably a shorter term solution if energy storage is available in my opinion.

I applaud T. Boone’s efforts and hope that the battery development underway for transportation is wildly successful and makes his dream a reality.

[rjl]

Wind energy is making some huge advances right now. There's a wind farm being build up by Concordia who's turbines will produce twice the power of the ones built near Beaumont just a few years ago.

I've no doubt it will become a major source of energy in the future.

[rayc]

rjl:
Wind energy is making some huge advances right now. There's a wind farm being build up by Concordia who's turbines will produce twice the power of the ones built near Beaumont just a few years ago.

I've no doubt it will become a major source of energy in the future.

Wind has tremendous potential as an energy source. While improvements in wind turbine technology are important, the underlying problem remains the same. A turbine capable of producing 20 KW when only 1 KW is demanded by the energy user will only produce 1 KW.

As a side comment, economic feasibility studies done to justify the turbine will normally assume all 20 KW was produced when in fact it will not be – unless of course, there is a way to store that available energy for use later.

[SubGod22]

A view from the other side about this plan