
T. Boone Pickens’ efforts to convince the political leadership to invest heavily in a fundamentally flawed energy concept continue to move apace. Anyone else notice his ads following President Obama’s speech to Congress?
Superficially, Pickens’ $10s of millions (likely over $100 million now) expended on advertising, websites, and other media provide a superficially appealing concept:
- Build wind turbines
- Use wind electricity to displace gas-fired electricity (about 22 percent of the grid’s power)
- Use that natural gas to replace imported oil in transportation
So simplistically appealing, with a clarity of purpose put forward by this old oil man in such a compelling manner.
The Pickens Plan has many problems, many flaws, but at the core, the worst of all might best be referred to as The Peabody-Pickens Axis for Perpetuating Pollution.
When considering the Pickens Plan, the image that might strike most is wizened T. Boone Pickens speaking simply and directly as wind turbines turn in the background. This old oil man speaking the praises of renewable energy. So refreshing, so appealing. Willing to say, directly, that "this is one problem that we can’t drill our way out of." Are we surprised that prominent Democratic Party leaders have met with and, seemingly, embraced die-hard Republican Pickens with open arms?
The wind turbines might be the most striking image for most, but not me. A very simple pie chart provides, for me, the stark summary of The Pickens Plan and why, fundamentally, T. Boone’s concepts are so dangerous at their core.
It is a very simple pie chart entitled "US sources of electrical generation" with four wedges
- Coal: 50%
- Nuclear: 20%
- Other: 8%
- And, a wedge pulled out: Natural Gas, 22%
Remember, the basic concept of the "Plan": use wind power to displace natural gas from the electrical grid and then use that natural gas to displace imported oil.
The problem
That 50%.
The 50% of electricity coming from
coal-fired electricity remains untouched in Pickens’ concept. Putting aside the issues of the huge fiscal cost of putting in equipment for concentrated natural gas transportation (and it is a high figure, both for vehicles and refueling stations) and the high opportunity costs that ensue (how else could we spend the money). Put aside how natural gas is a fossil fuel, like oil, and we are simply shifting transportation from one limited in reserves and polluting fossil fuel to another limited in reserves and (albeit less) polluting fossil fuel. Putting aside all the other uses for natural gas that have higher value than moving around SUVs (heating homes, making fertilizer, industrial processes), and putting aside so many other issues, I return to that 50%.
Pickens says that Global Warming is secondary to him, but that adopting his plan will move the nation forward on the Global Warming agenda. That 50% puts the lie to his claims. We cannot make meaningful steps forward in mitigating climate change without radically cutting our (and convincing others to radically cut their) coal usage, mainly for electricity.
What T. Boone offers is an illusion of achieving progress, while setting a path to line his (and his allies’) pockets, and setting a path that would dig our hole(s) even deeper.
In the end, what does that 50% suggest about The Pickens Plan: that Pickens’ hidden and strongest ally might actually be the coal industry and coal industry giants like Peabody.
Thus, the Peabody-Pickens Axis for Perpetuating Pollution.



63 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
PPAPP?
there’s probably an unknown and unreported problem with wind energy as well
that wind does stuff, if we convert too much of it we’re gonna prevent things like polination.
I have no idea what would be affected but some things would have to change
“it’s always something”
Roseann Roseanna Danna
Thanks A. Digg is open.
A great post, to which I would just add that, however bad T-Boone is, he divided the conservative monolith that used to exist. Before T-Boone’s high profile ads, I would get slammed by all my GOP friends for even mentioning the cost of importing oil.
Next stop, stopping big coal and other unsustainable options.
I think he likes the cap and trade idea, in which government subsidy of his windmill electricity would give him credits to run his coal and oil generating activities. It’s win-win. It’s also what’s deeply flawed about cap and trade.
The T. Boone Plan is a smoke screen to acquire the Right of Way that would allow him to build a water pipeline from the west texas area to DFW area
http://www.treehugger.com/file…..-recap.php
Every single option in life has its positives and negative aspects, and choices for our energy sources are absolutely no exception. One has to use energy to make the steel & concrete, etc, for the turbines. They require transmission wires and some percentage of people don’t like to look at wind turbines.
In other words, there are no zero-cost options out there and wind is no exception. There are, however, relative risks and opportunities, costs and benefits. Looked at from this angle, wind is a while lot more attractive than coal or other fossil foolish options for electricity.
My viewpoint is that the “leadership” has handled Pickens poorly. Rather than embracing him as a “friend” (Reid, often, for example), we should have put Pickens up as the extreme of reasonable debate. Make the debate on our energy future be represented by Pickens (wind & natural gas to get us (the US) off oil, global warming secondary), on the one side, and Al Gore (100% clean electricity in a decade, move transportation to electricity) on the one hand. Use Pickens to marginalize out of any reasonable portion of the discussion Sarah “Energy Expert” Palin and others of the Drill! Baby! Drill! coalition to destroy the future.
There are many aspects to the Pickens Plan, including the issue of how he will use this as a subsidy path for draining the acquifer, that are not discussed here but are raised in the discussions linked in the post.
{{{snort}}}
what about Lighter Than Air hydrogen windships??
In the time the car fleet could turn over and convert to CNG, it could turn over and convert into plug in hybrids.
Tfleet turn over time: It would take 10 years for many people to sell their current cars & buy a new one.
And what Mr Pickens is not addressing is the rights-of-way for the transmissions lines (hard, and full of nimbys), and the 50% transmission loss of the electricery.
A swindler working to poison the world as his opeccar gets rich. No soul remaining in tired empty suit.
May the “Pickens” be Slim.
Natural gas drillers have been buying up leases in New York State after buying up leases in Pennsylvania. They are using a new process called horizontal drilling Hydrofracing where they fracture and release gas from below 3000 feet using a slurry of chemicals in a proprietary formula which they refuse to disclose. One of the component chemicals used out West was diesel.
Experience in Fort Worth and in more rural areas shows that natural gas drilling cannot be done without endangering adjacent fresh water acquifers. The produced waters which exist below in the gas wells are brought to the surface and they contain BTEX chemicals: benzene, ethyl benzene, tuolene, and xylene all of which can cause cancer. In addition toxic metals and Norms/radon and radium are brought to the surface and stored in pits.
Our state DEC has never assessed any of our state gas wells for pollution and under the 2005 federal Energy Act, gas drillers are exempt from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act as well as the superfund laws. The plan for hydrofrac drilling here is to set up as many as eight wells on a 3 to 4 acre pad and then to horizontally drill out from the pad.
In New York State there is some resistance by NYC to drilling in the upstate watershed which provides clean fresh water from the Catskill mountains and adjacent Hudson Valley area. To find out more about the dangers of drilling for natural gas go to http://www.nrdc.org and read, “Drilling Down”.
There is nothing clean or climate friendly about the Pickens (Natural Gas) Plan.
The plan sounds highly alliterative.
That’s good thinking. To make them really elegant, feature a large, on-board smoking lounge. That should sell lots of tickets.
Are you smearing PPAPP?
Why this isn’t happening with every non-emergency vehicle in municipalities across the country is beyond me.
As cities and states replace vehicles, they should be forced (via federal incentives) to buy CNG cars and trucks.
Could also have a large fireworks display to celebrate launch.
That’s the kind of Strategic Thinking we need to move this economy forward.
Actually there are downsides.
They industrialize rural landscapes.
They are surprisingly noisy.
They`re rough on birds.
The wind that comes out the other side of a field of wind turbines is stronger than the wind that in – they have the effect of intensifying wind.
I`m sure there are other things as well.
Always the trade-offs…
I went to the Sky River Rock Festival and Lighter than Air Fair Sept.2,1968, in Washington state, a year before Woodstock, the first of what was to be an annual event called Sky River Rock Festival , took place near the towns of Sultan and Gold Bar in Washington state, at Betty Nelson’s Organic Raspberry Farm. This may well have been the first multi-day outdoor rock festival ever held. The site was near the Skykommish River, hence the name Sky River. Some of the bands to play that first festival were, Big Mama Thornton, Santana, James Cotton, and Country Joe and the Fish. The Grateful Dead showed up on the last day of the festival. Also rumored to have played were Pink Floyd, and Allman Joy (early Allman Brothers). Balloon rides contributed to make the fair “lighter than air
I haven’t yey heard how we’re going to convince the Chinese to stop using coal?
It would seem on the face of it, to one of the biggest issues coming down the road?
Is there a plan?
Ha’ rotsa ruck.
He’s very carefully not pointing out that in a lot of the western states, many powerplants run on natural gas, because coal is scarce and plants using coal can’t meet air quality standards.
Evidence? Because every daisy farm I’ve seen is mostly empty space (look at the one west of Palm Springs, in an aerial photo), and also built in naturally windy areas. Some of those places are also natural wind tunnels, so the wind is naturally stronger on the downwind side.
It strikes me that any energy-related technology that uses large amounts of water is unsustainable in even the medium-term – as aquifers are drained. And that`s apart from the question of toxicity.
Isn`t this what happened in Saudi Arabia?
This is what is going to kill the oil sands in northern Alberta, in my somewhat uninformed opinion.
I`ll have to look – info is based on a CBC documentary a while back.
There are quite a few. It is impossible to increase or decrease output based on demand at coal fired plants. This is accomplished through the use of natural gas to supplement.
Huh … Okay, please explain to me why we should go to CNG rather than other options?
How about moving toward electric, with HEVs, then PHEVs and EVs? We can, immediately, start going with plug-in hybrid electric school buses.
Unless we have methane digesters, CNG move us from one fossil foolish addiction to a somewhat less damaging fossil fuel addiction … which is simply foolish.
An interesting article on the results of a Danish study of their wind power program.
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
I can read this as sarcastic, delayer (we can’t do anything because Chinese aren’t) comment or as serious …
Let’s go with serious:
1. The PRC is actually striving to move forward with energy efficiency and has serious laws in place promoting renewables. They are ’shifting’, although it is complex.
2. A path forward is to be driving down the total costs such that renewables are cheaper than new coal, even for PRC, and eventually less expensive even then existing coal plants.
3. PRC sees real impacts of Global Warming, already, and is going to be partner, I think, not obstacle in changing global direction.
4. It is not a simple problem, but that problem should not stop us (the US) from what is right … on multiple levels.
I’ve always been skeptical about wind but I’ve never bothered to research it. It may work some day when the technology improves, especially storage (some sort of hot water thingy?). I only scanned your link (thanks BTW), but my favorite part was the problem caused by buildup of dead bugs.
Thanks for the very helpful response.
Also flinging chunks of ice about.
Looks like I misremembered the issue about the outflow of wind, but there appears to be this issue, which will become more of a problem wrt climate change.
Source: http://www.aip.org/dbis/AGU/stories/15022.html
There’s more to Picken’s plans than wind energy and nat gas. He is also after the water rights on a huge, important (for water) strip of Texas. He wants to control the water there and get richer off that.
The only good part of his plan is the wind farm. The rest is subterfuge for more of the same (and worse).
Solar might end up as a big part of it .
http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=126561
Long story short, the researchers at Binghamton University’s Center for Autonomous Solar Power are working on thin film solar cells that can be slapped on just about anywhere. Plug it in , and voila! solar-powered (just about) anything , including vehicles. One researcher envisions incorporating it into fabrics, to charge phones,PDAs, etc. (& heat?)
I’ve seen the prototypes previously (in other news than above) . Look about like a sheet of wired-up mylar, maybe 10 mil thick(?). The major drawbacks of current solar cells is the expense and bulk of the materials . This would solve those problems . They estimate commercial availability in 3-5 years. Might change with recent federal grants (& stimulus $?) .
^ By “it”, I meant an alternative to the current situation, not the 5-P.
This discussion is a bit naive. First, Pickens priority is to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Hence, the emphasis on coal and gas. Second, electric vehicles is not an “alternative” to CNG. Where does electricity come from? Right now it’s either coal or gas. Renewables are not realistic in the near term. Picken’s plan is a stopgap. CNG is mainly proposed for commercial trucking, not passenger cars. He favors development of electric vehicles. The question is how will you generate the electricity? Finally, how the hell do you get stronger winds coming out of a wind turbine than going in? Haven’t you heard of the first law of thermodynamics?
i am always amazed when i read about the “problems of a CNG support grid” .. jeebus .. almost every city has natural gas piped to most homes and building already .. any current NG supply could be tapped into to supply a compressor station .. it’s conceivable someone could even invent a device that could use the extant NG line at folks homes to compress NG directly back into the vehicle’s tanks .. but so far as it beign difficult to get supply points on-line .. the grid already exists in most places ..
I’d say you have far more faith in the average person’s ability to tap into Natural Gas without killing themselves than I do. (And I include myself in that group as potentially capable of killing myself/themselves through inexperience, carelessness, whatever)
Japan has already moved on to Hydrogen. This is the real energy future for the world. Walter Russell, an American genius, has already developed an engine that uses hydrogen. This was back in the 1940’s. It was dissed because they couldn’t fathom how the economy would work without fossil fuels. Obviously, they were wrong. This would be a free fuel. Only the machines that utilized it could be patented. Russell’s work was amazing. Sadly, this great American has been wiped from the history books. His biography is titled “The Man Who Tappeed the Secrets of the Universe.”
1. Naive … okay, I will hold myself calm. Try reading the discussions in the links.
2. The point is that his plan would dig our hole even deeper, when it comes to Global Warming. We have three interconnecting challenges: Economy, Energy, Environment. Solution has to work for all three, not just two.
Ahh … read the links …
The question is not the overall distribution system (although there could be capacity issues), but those CNG refueling points … whether in homes or gas stations.
Pickens, himself, estimates $75+k per truck if we were to commit to 75k trucks. The estimate: $30 billion to do 350,000 tractor trailers. What else could we do with that $30 billion? 50% of total cost of electrification of rail, which would have far greater value in cutting both emissions and imported oil dependency. Or, $10 billion for realtime feedback for 100% of America’s existing cars to cut oil dependency by several multiples of what the CNG conversion would achieve, leaving $20 billion for 25% of electrification of rail.
Etc …
I see. And who will build the pipeline to the sun?
Pickens is promoting wind power for reasons of his own, and I’m thankful to him for doing it. I’m against a natural-gas-powered transportation infrastructure, but it could still be productive to work with him on steps 1 and 2 (massive wind power investment, use it to burn less fossil fuel to make electricity) and hold off (indefinitely) on step 3 (natural gas powered cars).
Hydrogen is a great fuel- but hardly free. One needs to free it from Oxygen in water- and that requires- guess what- ENERGY!
W
Elegantly stated.
Adam, I’m sympathetic to your concern over global warming. But frankly, I spent a lot of time meandering through your links and nowhere did I see you address this as the “Pickins problem”. Basically, from what I could tell, you have a problem with his political contributions. So despite you having this free space here on FDL you can’t come to the point. After 10 paragraphs you claim that by supplanting foreign oil by renewables and (cleaner) domestic NG this will make the problem worse (ie, increase CO2 emissions). If there is a net reduction in total hydrocarbon sources how do you figure it doesn’t REDUCE greenhouse gas emission? You need to spend less time fulminating if you want to save energy.
aldole — I find your comment, at best, disingenous. Here is an example of something from one of those links:
I have discussed his political contributions, but would be willing to put them aside if he was bringing a real solution to the table.
I have discussed his profit potential. But, if he offers a real solution, it doesn’t pain me if he makes a huge profit at it.
I have discussed the water issues — which is something of great concern.
But, what Pickens is hoping for is ‘rent seeking’ — to have the government subsidize (and even mandate) his suboptimal path that will take resources away and undercut our potential to achieve something far better and far more effective.
Pickens, repeatedly, stands up and says that “no one else has a plan …” There are 10s of legitimate plans out there, most of which offer better prospects of dealing with our triple whammy of E3: Economy, Energy, Environment.
We don’t need, as a nation, to put $10s (actually likely $100s) of billion putting in place an infrastructure for the next 20, 30, 40 years that is, at best, a very suboptimal path forward.
Or to celebrate lunch.
Once, at least.
Adam,
There’s nothing in Pickins’ plan that would preclude energy efficiency. By all means, increase fuel efficiency, building energy usage – who’s preventing it? He’s merely proposing a short term proposal to eliminate or reduce dependence on foreign oil (and BTW reducing greenhouse emissions). You don’t want to take that at face value. Fine. Propose your own solutions, but remember that unless you can convert power plants from burning oil/gas/coal, electric cars and trains don’t solve the problem.
This plan never mentions coal! A. Siegel needs to explain what’s wrong with generating electricity from wind, which is very clean and cheap energy, and powering vehicles with with natural gas, which is less polluting than petroleum-based fuels.
Just a comment on what adding wind generation to the electricity system does. Then you can argue about what you want to do with that fact.
Power plants are dispatched (directed to generate power) by system operators in economic merit order, based on short run operating costs — that’s the rule everywhere. It means, with some exceptions, that the cheapest to operate plants are dispatched first, then the next cheapest, and so on. The most expensive plants are only dispatched last, only if we need them, when everything else that is cheaper is already fully dispatched but we still need more generation to meet demand.
Coal is very cheap, because most of its environmental “costs” are not internalized and so not recognized in the dispatch. A carbon tax would make it more expensive, but without that, coal plants are cheap to run; so they’ll be dispatched early in the dispatch order. For this reason, many coal plants tend to run all the time; they’re always dispatched, expect maybe a few hours on the weekends when demand is very low.
Wind energy is extremely cheap, since the marginal cost of each Mwh is near zero. The wind is free. This means that when if a wind turbine can run, it’s energy is taken first in the dispatch.
But wind will rarely displace coal, because coal is also cheap. What gets displaced when wind generators are running is whatever power plant/fuel source is on the margin — the more expensive (to operate) plants. In most US regions, the marginal resource will often be power plants fueled by natural gas. Newer, more fuel efficient gas plants may still operate part time, because they are moderately expensive, but the older, less fuel efficient gas plants will be pushed off the dispatch because they’re the most expensive to run.
Bottom line: wind generator tend to displace less efficient gas plants. That’s a fact. It’s how the system works. It doesn’t mean that coal plants are “good,” or that we don’t care about carbon emissions. It’s simply a consequence of how the electricity dispatch operates — everywhere.
So now that we know that wind plants will tend to displace inefficient gas plants, we know that when we add wind, there will be more natural gas available for other uses. That’s half of Pickens’ argument. Correct so far.
What do you want to do with this national gas? We could convert homes heated by dirty fuel oil to less dirty gas. Or we could build more efficient gas plants and try to displace the older, dirtier, less efficient coal plants. Those ideas would produce net reductions in carbon emissions.
Another idea is to use it to displace transportation fuel. It might make sense, it might not. But the fact that wind turbines free up natural gas for other purposes doesn’t determine the answer. It just makes the question possible.
This is not an argument for or against Pickens, or about the merits of converting oil/diesel fleets to burn gas.
A Canadian journalist named William Marsden recently wrote a book entitled “Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada” in which he relates how Ontario announced in 2003 that it was going to shut down its coal-fired plants and replace them with Canadian natural gas. Only to be told that by 2011 Canada might very well be out of natural gas, especially in light of how much natural gas it is using to extract oil tar sands. That forced them to defer the decision.
The problem with Pickens’s plan is that it relies too heavily on transmission. These large wind generators must be located far from population centers which requires additional energy just to get them across the lines. A better solution would be to allow many more smaller wind machines closer so they can use existing lines and also the owners can just avoid using conventional energy. That is counter to the large utility company model which likes overengineered and overcapitalized corporate ventures.
Excuse me, where do I critique generating power from wind? Come off it …
And, there are numerous problems with the plan past that.
1. NG is the proper partner, after hydro storage (and other storage if we can get it), at this time for intermittent power sources to assure electricity supply.
2. The switch to NG for vehicles will take a lot of resources, resources that we can better spend on other paths.
3. NG is far more efficient to generate electricity to then power transportation than being burned in ICE engines.
Etc … this post is limited to 500 words (or so). Via links you have access to the 1000s that I’ve written on Pickens (at FDL and elsewhere).
Have you ever seen the energy efficiency benefits of electrified transport?
ANd, increasing penetration of EV/PHEV/Electrified rail combined with ’smart grid’ will enable greater penetration of renewable energy due to distributed storage opportunities.
I have heard mixed discussions on this point.
It depends on, as I understand it, the extent to which natural gas is being used as ‘baseload’ for the wind to be able to offset.
Do you have any references?
PS: Thank you for the comment.
If a particular utility system has very little coal or nuclear or hydro, its “baseload” resources might will be plants powered by natural gas, because their is nothing cheaper to operate. This is not the usual case in most regions.
A rough estimate:
Regions/baseload:
South = coal/nuclear
Midwest = coal/nuclear
East/Atlantic = coal nuclear
Northeast/NY = nuclear/coal, maybe a little hydro
West = usually coal, some nuclear
California = nuclear, but Cal utilities own out-of-state coal which tends to be baseload
Northwest = hydro, coal.
The newest, most fuel-efficient gas plants (combined cycles) with heat rates about 8,000Btu/Mwh, can sometimes be close to baseload and may be dispatched before older, less efficient coal plants, but not before nukes.
“Baseload” simply means the dispatcher runs it all the time, even when demand is lowest, because there is nothing cheaper to run.
OTOH, during very low demand periods, the marginal unit could well be an older coal plant. During those hours, introducing more wind could displace some coal, but probably not much. I haven’t seen the figures in a while, but check out PJM or Midwest ISO websites.
T Boone Pickens buys Peabody Energy Corp., Chesapeake Energy
Peabody Energy is the largest private-sector coal company in the world
http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=49588
Same as here…jaw jaw, economics, save the world.
Here’s how I’ve been classifying things lately:
the health of the planet/environment, the health of humankind and the works of humankind (both static things and dynamic relationships and activities).
protect the environment (mostly from ourselves),
protect people’s health,
support and protect political & economic systems and cultural things
Most of our efforts are on economics and political (wars) and it’s only been in recent decades that we’ve even begun to think about the environment and health. Cultural things, including religion and arts, are generally left to free people to do. That means the political system should protect freedom for people to create stuff. It starts, as a Westerner I believe, by realizing all power is in the people and then specifying how any limitations on that could occur or would never occur.
“Energy” & “Technological ideas” is a key thing which relates (so far) to environment and to economic systems, but is also an enabler for people to do many things. So, to put it up there as a key thing is awfully easy. I also see them as ‘works of humankind’.
It’s fine to be free, but how are ya gonna buy that fancy house & car if you’ve got no money. And, how are you gonna get politicians to change the system for you to get the money if you have no power. And, how are you gonna feel you have a voice in the political world if you’ve always been raised to believe you’re inconsequential (slave mentality).
“It’s hard to be free when you’re bought and sold in the market every day.”
— from Five Easy Pieces, starring Jack Nicholson
I haven’t given this any thought, but the idea of every house having it’s own small wind turbine the way they often have a satellite dish or a tv antenna wouldn’t be terribly stupid if the grid could get that energy and distribute it properly.