Pickens Plan
Pickens wanted to reduce American dependence on imported oil by investing approximately $US1 trillion in new wind turbine farms for power generation, which he believed would allow the natural gas used for power generation to be shifted to fuel trucks and other heavy vehicles with Compressed natural gas.
[5] Dave Hamilton, director for global warming and energy projects at the Sierra Club agreed: "That is extremely aggressive ..
It is a calculation relating to the effective force of the wind at a particular location, frequently expressed in terms of the elevation above ground level over a period of time.
The results of the above calculation are entered into an index developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and referred to as "NREL CLASS."
[citation needed] This would tap only a small fraction of total U.S. wind power potential, which is estimated to be as much as 16 times more than the year-2005 electricity demand in the United States.
The IER claims that Pickens' plan relies on government subsidies and that producing large amounts of wind power is not a viable option.
"[12] Pickens acknowledges that natural gas would still be required for peak electricity demand and additional infrastructure would be needed to distribute the wind energy across the country.
According to a 2007 study by Archer & Jacobson published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, interconnecting ten or more widely separated wind farms allows 33 to 47% of the total energy produced (15–20% of nominal capacity) to be used as reliable, baseload electric power, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height.
[16][17] To dispatch power when the wind isn't blowing, backup power plants would be needed, according to Paul Fremont, an electric utility analyst at the investment bank Jefferies & Co.[6] Natural gas plants can quickly be brought online to supply peaking capacity during periods of low wind or peak demand.
The excess energy is stored chemically in different ionic forms of vanadium in a dilute sulphuric acid electrolyte.
Ken Medlock, a research fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, says that the US will continue to use natural gas for electric power generation.
[5] Vehicles which use large amounts of fuel realize savings more quickly from the lower price of CNG relative to diesel.
[citation needed] In November 2008, Pickens changed his position stating that he wants heavy trucks, not cars running on natural gas.
[28] Since July 2008, Pickens’ Dallas-based investment firm, BP Capital, has lost as much as $2 billion as a result of the falling stock market and credit crunch.
"[32] The Reuters article continues to say "While the number of U.S. rigs drilling for natural gas has climbed about 20 percent over the last year and prices are at record highs, producers have been struggling to raise output."
John DeCicco, a senior fellow at Environmental Defense, is critical of the plan because it assumes that gas would remain cheap despite growing demand and increasing reliance on imports as evidenced by proposals for LNG terminals.
Critical of the plan, the National Center for Public Policy Research, a self described conservative think tank, asserts that nuclear power plants would be a better alternative than the wind farms.
To some,[39][40] this plan seems to ignore one of the most fruitful paths[citation needed] to cut into America's foreign oil addiction: plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles.
Some hybrid owners[41] argue the part that using compressed natural gas as a transportation fuel does not make sense especially when the new wave of electric and hybrid-electric vehicles that are expected to hit the market in the coming years.
The $700 billion bailout bill signed by President Bush in 2008 includes tax credits up to $7,500 for US buyers of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.
[44] The Port of Los Angeles and South Coast Air Quality Management District have demonstrated a short-range heavy-duty electric truck manufactured by Balqon Corporation (http://www.balqon.com) capable of hauling a fully loaded 40-foot (12 m) cargo container.
[46] The plans of T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore have some similarities - each lessens the dependence on fossil fuels - but differ in their eventual goals.
[citation needed] Patricia Monahan, deputy director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists thinks differently.
The proposed pipeline would have followed the same 250-mile (400 km) corridor as the electric transmission lines from the wind farms, which was to be seized for utility use from private owners through eminent domain.
Many Texas landowners and legislators denounced the plan, particularly the fact that it allowed eminent domain to be exercised by an agency consisting only of T. Boone Pickens's employees.
[54] T. Boone Pickens continues to purchase water rights in the Great Plains and has plans to build more, smaller wind farms.
Having to pay more for vehicle fuel and home heat at the same time (because both would be the same product) could have a major economic impact on the nation every year.
Another concern is that the reasoning behind the big immediate push for a natural gas future, is to lock out possible development and implementation of more viable renewable energy sources.
Congressmen and nine governors had pledged "to enact an energy plan that reduces our foreign oil dependence by at least 30% within ten years.
[72][73] Former Clinton White House chief of staff and current president of the Center for American Progress John Podesta supports the plan.
