I’ve been watching with interest T Boone Picken’s campaign about getting the US to take seriously the issue that it buys way too much energy overseas. He has quite correctly pointed out that we Americans as group, truly do not understand the implications of transferring so much wealth overseas. Especially at a time that we are racking up a huge debt fighting a so called war against terror-the same terror movement that is being funded by those dollars that are buying oil. Primarily because it funds useless Arab governments, which keeps them afloat in cash, their economies dysfunctional, and employing too many third country nationals. As a result it fails to do a damn thing about making the lifeblood of the radicals we are fighting, Islam irrelevant. Pickens may be on to something. He’s echoing a theme I have long believed, and which this week the Economist confirms, that the so called war on terror will not be won militarily. It will be won by kicking the Arabs in the teeth economically and making them earn an honest living for a change.
Now I admit, that I never really gave T. Boone Pickens much thought before this. All I knew was that he funded the Swiftboat ads, was obscenely rich, while I was not. So unless he was going to give me some of that money, there was not much his opinion really mattered much to me.
I think from the start it is important to note that Pickens has a financial stake in this, and if wind power takes off he’s going to make a lot of money. But that’s Ok because if Arabs are not making money off me buying gas, I benefit.
On energy, my viewpoint can be summed up as, ” Nuke the whales and screw the polar bears.” In other words I support drilling in ANWAR and I support nuclear power-with the proviso that it is a tightly regulated utility and has to live by the exacting standards that has made Navy nuclear power so successful over the past 50 years. Indeed it should probably be a semi government utility. Trons is trons though and its going to take a combination of things to wean the US off foreign oil. Problem is none of those ideas gets me cheaper gas next week.
Pickens plan centers on several things-and for the most part I agree with his points:
America uses too much oil and too much comes from overseas.
As a result of high oil prices, we are transferring too many dollars to nations who do not deserve the use of them. “Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.”
Like me, he believes in the theory of peak oil:
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.
Pickens believes that there are technology alternatives. Not suprisingly a lot of them revolve around around wind power-an area Pickens is heavily invested in. However that does not necessarily mean he is wrong. After all he as made 3 billion dollars playing his hunches over the years.
By expanding wind power for electricity it will free up natural gas, which can then go in cars. Less cars burning oil means less oil needed to be bought. He argues that it will create lots of American jobs-I am not so sure about that, because the companies that make the turbines can still outsource the work overseas- however the central theme makes sense.
EXCEPT………
People still don’t have any way to get from here to there-for the most part-except by taking a car. And that is where I worry Picken’s logic breaks down for the long haul. As I pointed out before in a previous post-we still don’t have any other alternatives to get home from the bar.
My big fear is that the US can make a decent change in the pattern of fuel purchased to produce electricity, but without doing something to make the US other than, what the S.O. calls it, a car society-any gains will be for naught.
So I would add something to his plan-a commitment by both Federal and State governments as well as industry, to build, finance, and interlink a modern rail system and improved public transportation. I’m not sure exactly how to do that-but I also believe there are places where it would be a more practical alternative to air transportation. Like on short haul routes that are too short for big jets, but too long to drive. Better to ride a high speed train than ride one of the small planes used now. I think in the West and in the NE corridor, high speed trains could make a real difference. Certainly my trip home would have been different if I could have avoided the commuter leg out of Philadelphia this week.
(Long story).
Now I am biased about train travel, having lived in a country where it was reliable and plentiful. However one has to realize that by reducing car and auto consumption of fuel we all win. And we still can enjoy a good lifestyle. Japan and Europe have proven that.
Now maybe Pickens is right- natural gas will take off for automobiles-but I wonder. Will it make a Mustang go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? If not, how many people will buy it?
Still he’s right-we’ve got to do something about our oil addiction. Because it is at the heart of most of the US economic troubles.
I would be a little more enthused if his plan focused on nukes vs. wind. Not saying that wind can’t or shouldn’t be part of the solution, but I think that nukes will be a bigger part of that solution. There’s no logical reason that nukes can’t provide a much larger proportion of our electrical energy supply.
I’m not so sure about the mass transit idea in the west. In the NE I’ll buy, but most anywhere west of the Mississippi I don’t think the population density is high enough.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=13885828
Here is a link to the answer “Will it make a Mustang go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds?”
If you ever make it to Daytona Beach you can drive these dragsters. 0 to 70 in 3 seconds on propane. These are small blocK Chevrolet motors equiped to run on propane, note the 30 lb tank on the back. One of the benifits of using propane for these motors is that they run “cool”. They are running all day without overheating.
Here is an example of my thinking. I lived in Nevada for several years. Transportation in Nevada is essentially a triangle that runs Reno, Vegas, NE corner of the state. It takes 6+ hours to drive from Reno to Vegas. A bullet train can make it in 1+30. Leave from center city, no security to fight, bring your own drinks on the train.
San Diego to San Fran in less than 2 hours is also possible. That still less time than flying when all of the standing in line is thrown in.
Two thoughts — first, Germany has gone for LNG as a vehicle fuel in a large way — LNG in many Esso stations. As an aside, kind of stupid since much of their gas comes from Russia. Now they are giving Putin (AKA Gazprom) a larger control over them. But since he hired Gerhard Schroeder (former Chancellor), anything is possible.
Second, the French have taken their TGV network and tied it into the air transportation system. They are looking to eliminate all flights under 500 km (300 miles) and instead use the TGV to feed long haul flights. Aa a result, they have eliminated the Brussels – Paris flights — faster and more reliable to take the train. Germans are trying the same thing at Frankfurt. You can actually get a LH flight number, on an interline ticket, that is really a ICE train from the DB station in the FRA airport. We could do the same — use Chicago as an example. Eliminate all Chicago flights under 300 miles with a HS train station at O’Hare — meaning St. Louis, Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, but not Minneapolis, Des Moines or Cincinnati. Between AA and UA, you could increase capacity by wiping out 300 takeoffs and landings. Goes in all weather. Runs on electricity, generated by nuclear (like the French) or wind. You can do this in many other situtations — feed to Dulles, feed to DFW, feed to ATL.
Also a large chance for basic transformation of our housing patterns. The French are seeing “TGV suburbs” grow. For instance, Lille, 225 km north. Trains every 30 min at rush hour, hourly rest of the day. One hour each way. For instance, you could help revitalize Detroit if you tie it to 1+10 trains to Chicago. RE prices are determined by “location” — HS trains can redefine “location”. Same thing is possible in Hampton Roads — move some of the congestion out of NoVa with 1+00 trains to Dulles.
Scott,
You summed it up very nicely. Problem is it requires a large initial investment and I don’t see that happening.
Re: TGV suburbs. Japan has the same thing. People who live in Tohoku where the real estate is cheaper commute to Tokyo.
Why cant i get someone to change the way we generate and store wind energy?
We shood only sell the energy generated from wind at peek times.
Currantly we rarely get peek power price for our wind generated energy.
I have many times proposed we use wind power to produce stored air pressure.
This air pressure can then become energy on demand. This will change the way we
view wind energy and the way we sell it.
We can use the MDI air motor coupled to generators to generate electricty.
Unlimited storage can become the new way to generate and store and sell wind
power.This will make wind energy stand on its own and become a power player,
insted of purely at the mercy of the power grid needs.
Screw air compressors will also reduce the damage done to gear boxes in the transition to on line connection.
we can cerate a multi stage system to produce higher pressures to increase storage along with regulators for the supply pressures needed.jerry schell 901 626 1975
Wonder how one could get our leader to read the Economist much less listen. One wonders which of the candidates will consider the economic solutio nto terrorism (AKA Islamic radicals)? From McCain’s rhetoric me thinks is the other one.