Opposition to the Pickens Plan
Posted by K. Allen at 8/7/2008 4:13 PM 
Categories: Examining the Opposition
Tags: Clean Green Network Clean Green Nation Cleangreennetwork.com cleangreennation.com
Categories: Examining the Opposition
Tags: Clean Green Network Clean Green Nation Cleangreennetwork.com cleangreennation.com
I came across an article written by Houston Chronicle Columnist Loren Steffy titled:
Pickens' plan is bold - too bad it won't work
In the article, Steffy claims that Mr. Picken's plan is "riddled" with potential pitfalls citing the fact that the wind doesn'tblow all the time and there is a cost involved in transmittingelectricity and setting up natural gas fueling stations.
In mybook, however, three unsupported arguments does not constitute a "riddling". Steffy refers to a study that says thewind doesn't blow as much in the summer when electricity usage is at its highest. While that may fool some readers intothinking wind power isn't a viable source of renewable energy, there are a few engineers, environmentalist, and turbine owners whowould disagree. Now I can't speak for Mr. Pickens, but I'm pretty surewhen he researched his plan, he took into consideration the averageelectricity production of each turbine and included the summertime dataas well.
Mr. Steffy also criticizes Mr. Pickens' focus on natural gas, and not electric hybrid for use in automobiles. What he fails to point out is the Pickens Plan does not discount the value of electric and hybridvehicles. In fact, T. Boon Pickens says he's all for any energy source as long as it'sAmerican. The Pickens Plan is tackling only one problem: eliminate ourdependency on foreign oil. This is an economic campaign, but due to thenature of his solution, there is spillover to conversations aboutenergy conservation, cleaner energy sources, and the environment. Hisplan allows for all other forms of energy. Yes, Mr. Pickens hasfinancial interest in natural gas, and of course he stands to profit byusing NG for the country's transportation needs. So what? He's notsaying electric isn't a viable solution. He's simply proposing we tap into ourabundant supply of natural gas as a way to break our dependency onforeign oil.
The article goes on to blast the potential cost to deliver electricityfrom the wind corridor, however, Mr. Pickens makes it clear what costs areinvolved:1 trillion for his plan, and whatever residual costs tosupport the plan after it's complete. If we're spending $700 billion ayear on foreign oil, it's pretty easy to see, over the long term, theplan would potentially pay for itself. Money that does not come fromprivate investors will come from government possibly in the form of newtaxes. I have faith that people will gladly pay for an energy plan thatmakes sense, that allows for the development of clean renewable energysources, that stops giving billions of tax free dollars to foreigncompanies, and that makes the United States its sole supplier of itsown energy.
I also feel Mr. Steffy is way off base when he suggests peoplewon't pay to convert their automobiles to NG. I worked in theautomotive business during the time when the state of Arizona wasgiving huge tax breaks for alternative fuel vehicles, and I can say with 100% conviction thatpeople will convert their lawnmowers given the right incentives. Andtrust me, if the masses are converting their cars to NG, or purchasingnew NG vehicles, NG fueling stations will start miraculously sproutingup faster than you'll be able to count. There will be no need to worryabout the poor service stations who have to begrudgingly spend money toinstall the necessary equipment in order to make their millions andmillions of dollars.
I'm sure Mr. Picken's plan isn't 100% foolproof,and it will encounter resistance, and obstacles, but it's a plan; aviable, tangible, roll your sleeves up and get to work genuine plan; aplan I feel can be supported by all sides of the political arena.
The Houston Chronicle reporter goes on to say that Pickens supporters will view his plan as "putting his money where his mouth is" while opponents will say the plan is "self-serving". I ask why arethese two concepts considered opposite from each other? Can't you putyour money into a project that is beneficial to the country AND get areturn on the investment as well? Or would Mr. Steffy like us to believe theonly investment worth any merit is one where you have no opportunity toprofit?
Pickens' plan is bold - too bad it won't work
In the article, Steffy claims that Mr. Picken's plan is "riddled" with potential pitfalls citing the fact that the wind doesn'tblow all the time and there is a cost involved in transmittingelectricity and setting up natural gas fueling stations.
In mybook, however, three unsupported arguments does not constitute a "riddling". Steffy refers to a study that says thewind doesn't blow as much in the summer when electricity usage is at its highest. While that may fool some readers intothinking wind power isn't a viable source of renewable energy, there are a few engineers, environmentalist, and turbine owners whowould disagree. Now I can't speak for Mr. Pickens, but I'm pretty surewhen he researched his plan, he took into consideration the averageelectricity production of each turbine and included the summertime dataas well.
Mr. Steffy also criticizes Mr. Pickens' focus on natural gas, and not electric hybrid for use in automobiles. What he fails to point out is the Pickens Plan does not discount the value of electric and hybridvehicles. In fact, T. Boon Pickens says he's all for any energy source as long as it'sAmerican. The Pickens Plan is tackling only one problem: eliminate ourdependency on foreign oil. This is an economic campaign, but due to thenature of his solution, there is spillover to conversations aboutenergy conservation, cleaner energy sources, and the environment. Hisplan allows for all other forms of energy. Yes, Mr. Pickens hasfinancial interest in natural gas, and of course he stands to profit byusing NG for the country's transportation needs. So what? He's notsaying electric isn't a viable solution. He's simply proposing we tap into ourabundant supply of natural gas as a way to break our dependency onforeign oil.
The article goes on to blast the potential cost to deliver electricityfrom the wind corridor, however, Mr. Pickens makes it clear what costs areinvolved:1 trillion for his plan, and whatever residual costs tosupport the plan after it's complete. If we're spending $700 billion ayear on foreign oil, it's pretty easy to see, over the long term, theplan would potentially pay for itself. Money that does not come fromprivate investors will come from government possibly in the form of newtaxes. I have faith that people will gladly pay for an energy plan thatmakes sense, that allows for the development of clean renewable energysources, that stops giving billions of tax free dollars to foreigncompanies, and that makes the United States its sole supplier of itsown energy.
I also feel Mr. Steffy is way off base when he suggests peoplewon't pay to convert their automobiles to NG. I worked in theautomotive business during the time when the state of Arizona wasgiving huge tax breaks for alternative fuel vehicles, and I can say with 100% conviction thatpeople will convert their lawnmowers given the right incentives. Andtrust me, if the masses are converting their cars to NG, or purchasingnew NG vehicles, NG fueling stations will start miraculously sproutingup faster than you'll be able to count. There will be no need to worryabout the poor service stations who have to begrudgingly spend money toinstall the necessary equipment in order to make their millions andmillions of dollars.
I'm sure Mr. Picken's plan isn't 100% foolproof,and it will encounter resistance, and obstacles, but it's a plan; aviable, tangible, roll your sleeves up and get to work genuine plan; aplan I feel can be supported by all sides of the political arena.
The Houston Chronicle reporter goes on to say that Pickens supporters will view his plan as "putting his money where his mouth is" while opponents will say the plan is "self-serving". I ask why arethese two concepts considered opposite from each other? Can't you putyour money into a project that is beneficial to the country AND get areturn on the investment as well? Or would Mr. Steffy like us to believe theonly investment worth any merit is one where you have no opportunity toprofit?
Brought to you by
Comments