[Chongo]

I just watched T. Boone Pickens on MSNBC. He was hawking the "Pickens Plan" I'm sure you have seen the commercials. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c)
He say "I've been an oil man my whole life, but this is one emergency we cannot drill our way out of"

Mr Pickens' plan leaves out nuclear power, otherwise it sounds great on the surface.
Let's examine the plan: (http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/)
"Cliff Notes" version from Wikipedia

1. Using the United States' wind corridor, private industry will fund the installation of thousands of wind turbines in the wind belt, generating enough power to provide 20 percent or more of the country's electricity supply.
2. Again funded by the private sector, electric power transmission lines will be built, connecting these wind power generating sites with the power grid, providing energy to the population centers in the Midwest, South and Western regions of the country.
3. With the energy from wind now available to serve the large population centers in key areas of the country, the natural gas that was historically used to fuel natural gas-fired power plants can be redirected and used as a fuel for private cars and thousands of vehicles in the transportation system. This reduces the need for imported gasoline and diesel fuels.

The buses in Phoenix have been CNG powered for years.
Wind power is great where there is constant wind, as there is along I-40 just east of Kingman here in AZ. The problem is the "not in my backyard" syndrome. (http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/0...C-DailyShow.rm)

Natural gas powered vehicles. Very clean, only one problem, it's still "carbon based" fuel and we will still be a "carbon based economy" that many dread.

Where do we get natural gas anyway? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_field) Most NG is found during exploration for... OIL! You have to dill for natural gas, just like oil, and often are next to each other. If we cannot drill our way out, how does he propose finding new sources of NG without drilling? (and if he happens to find oil while drilling for gas...) I wouldn't be surprised if he owns GE stock, as well as owning Mesa Power LP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_boone_pickens#Wind_power)

Critics point out that the "Pickens' Plan" relies heavily on federal subsides.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan#Criticism)

The Sierra Club, Independent Green Party of Virginia, and the New York Herald are on board.
More thoughts, comments.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

More thoughts, comments.

1. Competition for fuel is good. It's good for innovation and invention, it's good for spurring consumers to accept change, and it's good for softening crises like the one we're in now and the increasing number we're bound to see in the future. The more options the better.

2. Energy independence is good. It's good for national security (duh), it's good for the economy, and it's good for the environment. Oil wars are expensive and wasteful. Even if natural gas offers no technical advantages over oil, it will save loads of money and environmental damage caused by the fact that Jesus put all of our oil under other countries (/colbert).

3. Compromise is good. If natural gas can bridge the gap between the two Americas, that alone will benefit all of us, wrt getting out of the oil stranglehold. Bickering amongst ourselves and rehashing all the same emotionally loaded proposals impedes progress.

In summary, more power to him, even if he is pumping his own portfolio in the process.

[BRussell]

So it's basically wind power for electricity? Great, but I'm wondering how he gets private industry to do this. It seems incredibly expensive to build all that infrastructure. I'm also a bit concerned that he has an economic interest in doing this. Assuming that's he proposing government subsidies to fund the infrastructure, isn't this plan just a big lobbying effort for taxpayer money going to his business? I'd prefer a system where, assuming the government funded the infrastructure, it would be sliced up and auctioned off, with very strict rules about making sure there was plenty of competition.

[Uncle Doof]

Getting private industry to do it = loans from banks to private industry = more "money" on the books = stave off the massive end-of-the-world-as-you-know-it depression that's coming for a short while longer.

[Dork.]

Why should nuclear power be off the table?

[khanselman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Why should nuclear power be off the table?

As he says in his little video, his plan is something he can see finished within 10 years. He said that for nuclear power it is going to take longer than what his plan is proposing.

[Chuckit]

It takes more than 10 years to build a nuclear plant? I'd heard it takes about four years.

[Uncle Doof]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It takes more than 10 years to build a nuclear plant? I'd heard it takes about four years.

Our own idiots here are talking as if it takes 10-15 years or something like that. Of course, we're quite possibly the slowest country on the planet and this could affect things, but there ya go.

[Chongo]

Environmental groups will start suing the minute one is proposed. The the refinery plant expansion efforts in Indiana are a perfect example.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

1. Competition for fuel is good. It's good for innovation and invention, it's good for spurring consumers to accept change, and it's good for softening crises like the one we're in now and the increasing number we're bound to see in the future. The more options the better.

2. Energy independence is good. It's good for national security (duh), it's good for the economy, and it's good for the environment. Oil wars are expensive and wasteful. Even if natural gas offers no technical advantages over oil, it will save loads of money and environmental damage caused by the fact that Jesus put all of our oil under other countries (/colbert).

3. Compromise is good. If natural gas can bridge the gap between the two Americas, that alone will benefit all of us, wrt getting out of the oil stranglehold. Bickering amongst ourselves and rehashing all the same emotionally loaded proposals impedes progress.

In summary, more power to him, even if he is pumping his own portfolio in the process.

It looks Pelosi will be in on it. Her 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists "Assets and 'Unearned Income'" of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. -- (Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CLNE)) is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It takes more than 10 years to build a nuclear plant? I'd heard it takes about four years.

To build it, perhaps, but to find a location and get permission, that'd take a few years for sure. Especially since most countries are more densely populated than the US (do you want a nuclear power plant in your back yard?).

[Chongo]

How has France managed build all their nuclear plants? Where have they been storing the waste? (selling it to Iran, possibly?)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How has France managed build all their nuclear plants? Where have they been storing the waste? (selling it to Iran, possibly?)

I don't know how it works now, but for many years their waste was OUR (U.S.) responsibility. Maybe onsite, but I can't remember.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Why should nuclear power be off the table?

Waste that lasts for thousands of years. We don't need it. There are cleaner technologies we can turn to if we're going to retool.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It takes more than 10 years to build a nuclear plant? I'd heard it takes about four years.

From dead start, it can take 20 years. First someone has to stand up and say "we want a nuke plant." Then they have to get their directors on board. Then they have to look for a contractor who can do the job. Then they have to start looking for a plant designer...Way too many hoops for relatively quick responsiveness to what's happening NOW.

And Mr. Pickens is already making part of this happen. Here in Texas you can see parts for wind turbines rolling down the highway toward our own wind corridor just about all the time. He has a LOT of land out there, and can probably influence a whole lot more. My own electric utility already offers (at a premium, of course) to provide individual homes with electricity sourced from wind. That helps them pay for their part of this project.

It's a viable proposition, it doesn't really hurt anyone, and it works. Those NIMBY folks may change their tunes when it turns out that wind turbines DON'T dice birds, don't really "blight" the landscape, and DO provide almost free power (when compared to oil today).

[RAILhead]

I've recently become interested in this, so I thought I'd resurrect the thread before it was too late.

Anyone have any new thoughts about this "plan"?

[stupendousman]

There are always 2 questions I have when I see people spending lots of money trying to get other people to spend their money:

1. Why aren't we doing that already, if it's such a great idea? Too expensive?
2. What's in it for him.

I don't trust someone with a HUGE financial stake in something, who is spending millions to lobby for it, to have anyone's interest in hand but their own. Sorry, but I smell a money making scheme designed as an altruistic plan. That's usually how most cons work.

[ort888]

This is the bastard that donated millions of dollars to the Swiftboat ad campaign in 2004 and then backed down from donating money after confronted on his "challenge".

I don't see how anyone from either party can condone those actions.

Not that it says anything about his energy plan, but it does say a lot about his character.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Boat_challenge

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How has France managed build all their nuclear plants? Where have they been storing the waste? (selling it to Iran, possibly?)

I'm not positive, but I believe that most countries in Europe (and Asia) with civil nuclear programs reprocess much of their waste into usable fuel. A byproduct of this process, however, is usually weapons-grade plutonium, so the United States actively frowns on it in the interest of limiting the potential for weapons proliferation.

Obviously reprocessing doesn't get rid of *all* of the waste, but it's probably a mitigating factor.

[Eug]

This is what I thought of...

[- - e r i k - -]

I have nothing to inject, unlike his wife:

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are always 2 questions I have when I see people spending lots of money trying to get other people to spend their money:

1. Why aren't we doing that already, if it's such a great idea? Too expensive?
2. What's in it for him.

I don't trust someone with a HUGE financial stake in something, who is spending millions to lobby for it, to have anyone's interest in hand but their own. Sorry, but I smell a money making scheme designed as an altruistic plan. That's usually how most cons work.

Pickens own Mesa power, a wind energy company. He also has significant amount of stock (392,500 shares) of Clean Energy Fuels, the largest provider of natural gas for vehicles.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There are always 2 questions I have when I see people spending lots of money trying to get other people to spend their money:

1. Why aren't we doing that already, if it's such a great idea? Too expensive?
2. What's in it for him.

I don't trust someone with a HUGE financial stake in something, who is spending millions to lobby for it, to have anyone's interest in hand but their own. Sorry, but I smell a money making scheme designed as an altruistic plan. That's usually how most cons work.

Money making scheme? You mean like a company in a capitalist country?
Even if it is just a venture capital thing, what's wrong with that? Nobody forces anyone to invest your money into it and if it takes off, you'll make a profit.

[l008com]

Its extremely hard to find a place to put windmills without having locals complain about it. If the NIMBYs are that strong against having windmills around, you can forget about nuclear power plants.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Money making scheme? You mean like a company in a capitalist country?

I have nothing against making money. I do though have something against making money by claiming you are engaging in an altruistic plan which will solve problems and be cost efficient - if that's not your primary reason for doing it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I have nothing against making money. I do though have something against making money by claiming you are engaging in an altruistic plan which will solve problems and be cost efficient - if that's not your primary reason for doing it.

How do you know it's not Picken's primary reason to do that?
And why is it bad to do something for mother nature and turn a tidy profit?

[RAILhead]

I didn't think I'd have too much luck asking about it here, since it seems everyone freaks-out about the most simple stuff.

Oh well...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How do you know it's not Picken's primary reason to do that?

I do not "know" it is. It's just a gut feeling based on the two questions I listed above. The guy has a huge financial investment in seeing this plan put into place. He's come up with a plan whose primary beneficiary is T. Boone Pickens, and wants us to believe he's doing this because he's had some sort of religious-type experience which has changed him apparently, after a lifetime of making billions from natural resources without much concern about it's impact.

And why is it bad to do something for mother nature and turn a tidy profit?

It's not "bad". It's just dishonest to portray something as altruistic when it's not. If he's not being honest about that, what else is he not being honest about? If there's one thing I've learned in all my years it's to beware politicians and businessmen who tell you that they have a plan to help you. Or, that they are doing something "for the children". It's almost never the case.

[RAILhead]

If a plan works, it works. Simple as that. And of course it's going to make him money -- he's the one that's pushing it, and he's invested in it.

I build guitar effects (RAILhead Effects), and you bet I'll tell you mine are better than the rest, blah blah blah. That's because I think they are, and because I want to make money. So does he -- and my effects are better, and so is his plan.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The guy has a huge financial investment in seeing this plan put into place. He's come up with a plan whose primary beneficiary is T. Boone Pickens, and wants us to believe he's doing this because he's had some sort of religious-type experience which has changed him apparently, after a lifetime of making billions from natural resources without much concern about it's impact.

Religious experience? Don't you think you're going a bit far here? It's a paradigm shift in business that is slowly coming to the US: you can make money off green technologies. A lot, if you do it right!
All major oil companies invest money in alternative energy sources.

If you invest your money, you'll get your share of the profit if this endeavor turns out to be profitable. I have invested money in investment funds, but you don't see me complaining that the `real' beneficiaries are my bank and the various companies managing the funds.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not "bad". It's just dishonest to portray something as altruistic when it's not. If he's not being honest about that, what else is he not being honest about? If there's one thing I've learned in all my years it's to beware politicians and businessmen who tell you that they have a plan to help you. Or, that they are doing something "for the children". It's almost never the case.

Altruistic? I don't think he has ever mentioned being an altruist in the videos I've seen. All I see is that he sees a way to make money off green technology (which I think is great). Of course he wants to convince investors that his proposition works and you can make money off it. That's how google and a fruit company most of us are fond of started, too.

Once you start making money off it, it becomes much more accepted. Germany, one of the leading countries in solar power and wind energy, employs more people in green industries than in the car industry. And yes, this makes a difference, it has become a broadly accepted branch of business.

My impression is that you don't want to believe that this is a well-intentioned project in terms of business and nature. I suspect primarily because you don't believe in green technologies.
You don't have to be convinced that this is a financially viable project, though, but then again, nobody forces anyone to invest any money into it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I build guitar effects (RAILhead Effects), and you bet I'll tell you mine are better than the rest, blah blah blah. That's because I think they are, and because I want to make money. So does he -- and my effects are better, and so is his plan.

Are you going to tell us that the primary reason you build the effects is to fight global warming, or some other altruistic cause?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Religious experience? Don't you think you're going a bit far here? It's a paradigm shift in business that is slowly coming to the US: you can make money off green technologies. A lot, if you do it right!
All major oil companies invest money in alternative energy sources.

Then let him do it. There should be no reason for a multi-million dollar consumer campaign where you claim that you are doing it "for the people" so to speak, if it's simply a matter of making money off of viable alternative energy resources. This comes back to the "why aren't we already doing this" question I posed.

My impression is that you don't want to believe that this is a well-intentioned project in terms of business and nature. I suspect primarily because you don't believe in green technologies.

A. I don't believe that there there currently is a mix of technologies which can replace oil as our primary fuel source in a way that is efficient. I believe that there are ways to lesson our need, but they aren't all that efficient when it comes down to implementation. There's a reason Pickens is spending millions on a PR campaign. If these "green technologies" could just be put into place and reduce oil dependancies without any real "pain", they wouldn't need the PR campaign.

B. I don't believe it when someone who has a fortune invested, infers that his plan is "right" for the people. There's a huge conflict of interest here and whenever there is such a conflict, you usually are not being told the whole story.

Sometimes, Soylent Green is "people".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are you going to tell us that the primary reason you build the effects is to fight global warming, or some other altruistic cause?

Picken's primary motivation is not global warming, it's to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and consequences thereof (he claims that this amounts to an annual transfer of $700 billion abroad).

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Are you going to tell us that the primary reason you build the effects is to fight global warming, or some other altruistic cause?

Then let him do it. There should be no reason for a multi-million dollar consumer campaign where you claim that you are doing it "for the people" so to speak, if it's simply a matter of making money off of viable alternative energy resources. This comes back to the "why aren't we already doing this" question I posed.

A. I don't believe that there there currently is a mix of technologies which can replace oil as our primary fuel source in a way that is efficient. I believe that there are ways to lesson our need, but they aren't all that efficient when it comes down to implementation. There's a reason Pickens is spending millions on a PR campaign. If these "green technologies" could just be put into place and reduce oil dependancies without any real "pain", they wouldn't need the PR campaign.

B. I don't believe it when someone who has a fortune invested, infers that his plan is "right" for the people. There's a huge conflict of interest here and whenever there is such a conflict, you usually are not being told the whole story.

Sometimes, Soylent Green is "people".

Come on now, spare me the comparison nitpick -- you know what I mean. Second, who said anything about him doing this for some higher purpose? I have yet to hear that form anyone but YOU. We aren't doing this now because we're so attached to oil, and it was take a paradigm shift to get people to "think different" about energy.

A. What? If we lived by that logic, we'd never improve anything.

B. Oh puh-LEEZE. There's no conflict of interest anywhere. He has an idea, he's trying to sell it, and since he's no idiot, he's going to take advantage of the capitalism that makes America the greatest nation on Earth. He's doing the American Dream.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Picken's primary motivation is not global warming, it's to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

QFT.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Picken's primary motivation is not global warming, it's to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and consequences thereof (he claims that this amounts to an annual transfer of $700 billion abroad).

I didn't say he was doing it to fight global warming. For the analogy to work, RAILhead would have just had to have used some sort of altruistic justification other than a good return on the investment of buying the effects units. I used global warming as an example.

So he's all for more drilling right? Since that too would help reduce America's dependence on foriegn oil. Maybe it's just that he doesn't want new competition and lower prices on oil which has made him a very wealthy man. It would be much better to keep oil prices high and shift any new energy production to an alternative that he has huge financial control over. I don't think that it takes a rocket scientist to figure a real motive out here.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Come on now, spare me the comparison nitpick -- you know what I mean. Second, who said anything about him doing this for some higher purpose? I have yet to hear that form anyone but YOU.

The claimed "higher purpose" from Pickens is that his plan must be implemented to "break America's addiction to foreign oil". It's just funny that this higher purpose apparently can only be accomplish via a means which will make Pickens an even richer man.

I'm telling you, I'm getting bad carbon credit offset voucher vibes here.

[RAILhead]

Why do I need to have anything altruistic in my example? You're the one interjecting that.

Person A has an idea that will help people.
Person A tries to sell it
Person A will help people AND make money

Period.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Why do I need to have anything altruistic in my example?
...
Person A has an idea that will help people.

That is altruistic

[OreoCookie]

No, altruism is to selflessly give to others. Pickens does not claim his plan is selfless.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, altruism is to selflessly give to others. Pickens does not claim his plan is selfless.

Please point to me anywhere Pickens explains that this plan will make him an even richer man and that his opinion regarding these alternatives is biased due to the conflict of interest in regards to his financial stake in the implementation of the plan. I can point to you where he claims his reason for doing it is for "America".

You don't go into "business" because you desire to "help" others. That is why you go into "charity" or "non-profit". If your goal is to profit, that's your goal. You very well may be able to satisfy a market segment at the same time, but you won't stay in business if your primary concern is not to make a lot of money. It's my opinion that despite appearances to the contrary, Mr. Picken's primary goal is to make a lot of money. That makes the credibility of the stated secondary goals less persuasive.

It's not much different than preachers who tell you they want to save your soul, but first you need to open your wallet.

[RAILhead]

Good Lord, what's wrong with you people? So basically, he should sell this idea and make no money on it -- then you'd be interested?

[Chongo]

Nancy Pelosi's husband purchased ≈$100k of stock in Boone's Mesa Energy. No wonder she is reluctant to have a vote on lifting the drilling ban.

[OreoCookie]

All you need to do is read about it. Pickens invests a large sum of his money and he believes the private sector needs to initiate a paradigm shift.

Originally Posted by Pickens

It results in revitalizing much of rural America with more than $1 trillion in private investment within 10 years instead of enriching other nations at our expense. It can all be accomplished with private investment but needs government support by clearing the way for action, which means help on providing the transmission rights of way, the appropriate renewals of the renewable energy tax credits, among other things.

Or have a look here:

Pickens, who made his fortune in oil and private equity, is the man behind plans for the world’s biggest wind farm, a risky play sizable enough to significantly multiply or divide even his ample assets. For a big win, he needs the support of the government to help build supporting infrastructure –- hence the big move.

So in short, he has made a strategic investment which he hopes will start a paradigm shift in America's transportation and energy industry. If the paradigm shift is successful, he (and all others who have invested early) will reap the profits of his endeavor. (All is fine by me.)

As far as I could tell, he currently does not look for investors in his own projects*, he wants to stimulate other wind farms just like his and push for some laws that would allow the distribution of electricity generated by wind.

* Some of the companies he has invested money in are public and you can buy their stock if you wish, though.

[stupendousman]

John Stossel has a great piece which explains why this stuff shouldn't be a political issue or require a big consumer PR pitch:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...reen_jobs.html

If "green jobs" make so much sense, the market will create them. They will be created by private entrepreneurs and venture capitalists who are eager to profit from winning investments. The best ideas will rise to the top, and green energy will gradually replace coal and oil.

If PIcken's plan is a winner, he shouldn't need PR stunts and the Government to do the heavy lifting for him. If it's a viable market alternative, the market will be eager to take him up on his offer. He should be talking to venture capitalists, not people on the TV. The fact that he's spending millions on TV commercials tells me he's having a hard time selling his idea to people who require investments to ACTUALLY make money.

[real]

If T. Boone Pickens is in favor then we are not interested. AT ALL!

Mark my words.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If PIcken's plan is a winner, he shouldn't need PR stunts and the Government to do the heavy lifting for him.

[besson3c]

I like the plan, although I hope that Americans understand that we need a comprehensive plan to get us off of oil, and while this plan sounds like a great step in the right direction, I hope it isn't politicized as being the lone solution to our much larger problems.

We also need to figure out how to fund and design a new infrastructure that is built around this, but perhaps baby steps are the best idea.

It is too bad that Americans weren't researching and developing theses technologies years ago like some other countries were. Jimmy Carter saw this coming years ago, but I guess Reagan's dismantling of Carter's solar cells and assuring Americans that everything is fine gave us a false sense of assurance that seems prevalent even today.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If PIcken's plan is a winner, he shouldn't need PR stunts and the Government to do the heavy lifting for him. If it's a viable market alternative, the market will be eager to take him up on his offer. He should be talking to venture capitalists, not people on the TV. The fact that he's spending millions on TV commercials tells me he's having a hard time selling his idea to people who require investments to ACTUALLY make money.

Doesn't compute. Look at Palin's natural gas pipeline deal. Same thing. If a businessman thinks he can get huge subsidies from the government (and Pickens is an oil man, so he's used to it), then he'll go after them. If you go to Washington, DC, you'll have TV and radio ads for every business deal you can think of.

[ghporter]

Getting government buy in is also useful for keeping a project going and expanding. It isn't necessarily a need for more funding, but spreading out the responsibility helps put government on the spot if they don't keep things rolling. Boone ain't stupid.