Pickens Plan based on false numbers

[sandeepmo]

If you followed the debate between Fred Smith and T Boone Pickens regarding the relative merits of a PHEV and Natural Gas Car, and you were as frustrated as I was, you'll like this article.

It shows Pickens has been incorrectly citing BTS numbers.

I m not sure if I found the "contact link" correctly, so you can find the article at:
Theseminal [dot] com

Title: mr-pickens-numbers-are-wrong


Cheers,
Sandeep

[SanZan]

I would recommend that anyone who believes in the Pickens Plan has a look at who he is, how he has been involved in politics in the past, what he owns, and how he is positioned should the plan be implemented. There is more to it than initially meets the eye.

[richard schumacher]

Picken's plan is to persuade others to spend billions on retrofits and infrastructure so that he can make millions selling them natural gas. It would be better to use natural gas to replace coal in generating electricity. We can judge his committment to energy independence and the environment by noting that he brought his West Texas wind farm plan to a screeching halt six months ago when money got tight.

[Zythryn]

While his numbers may be wrong, attack the numbers, not his motivation.
It is fallicious to argue that because someone positioned themselves to make money from a change in the way energy is used. Anyone who has the means, and sees that a change is necessary would be foolish not to position themselves in such a way.
If I had more money I would be investing in wind and solar as I feel that is the way of the future. Would solar and wind power be 'bad' simply because I was making money if it succeeded?

[ggood]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

While his numbers may be wrong, attack the numbers, not his motivation.
It is fallicious to argue that because someone positioned themselves to make money from a change in the way energy is used. Anyone who has the means, and sees that a change is necessary would be foolish not to position themselves in such a way.
If I had more money I would be investing in wind and solar as I feel that is the way of the future. Would solar and wind power be 'bad' simply because I was making money if it succeeded?

The point is he wants government to pay big bucks for the major transmission lines (and condemnation of an access corridor) that would be necessary to carry electricity from wind turbines he would put on lands he owns in north Texas down to major metro areas. If it's such a great idea, let him pay for it. There are already major lines running through west Texas and along the Gulf Coast that can accomplish the same purpose, without additional cost. They just don't happen to benefit Pickens.

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by ggood

The point is he wants government to pay big bucks for the major transmission lines (and condemnation of an access corridor) that would be necessary to carry electricity from wind turbines he would put on lands he owns in north Texas down to major metro areas. If it's such a great idea, let him pay for it. There are already major lines running through west Texas and along the Gulf Coast that can accomplish the same purpose, without additional cost. They just don't happen to benefit Pickens.

Valid arguement. But it has nothing to do with the 'his numbers are wrong arguement'.
As for your argument, does the government build the transmition lines (or pay or help pay for them) for other power producing plants (coal, nuclear, other wind farms, etc)?
I honestly don't know, but that seems the next logical question. If the government never does this, then as you say 'let him pay for it'.
If they do, why is it outrageous that they do so in this instance?

[ggood]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Valid arguement. But it has nothing to do with the 'his numbers are wrong arguement'.
As for your argument, does the government build the transmition lines (or pay or help pay for them) for other power producing plants (coal, nuclear, other wind farms, etc)?
I honestly don't know, but that seems the next logical question. If the government never does this, then as you say 'let him pay for it'.
If they do, why is it outrageous that they do so in this instance?

I'm really not an expert in this stuff, but it is my understanding the lines in West Texas are massive interstate lines and infrastructure that are there just because that's where it made sense. A byproduct of that is that now that wind farms are being developed, it makes parts of west Texas an ideal location, since it is close to the existing major distribution lines and has the right climae and geography for the turbines. You have a lot of happy ranchers getting some nice lease checks for allowing them on their property. Pickens would like to get in on the action with his lands further north, but it would require a massive investment to create the lines and infrastructure etc. just to serve one small area of potential wind energy. It is not economically viable and amounts to corporate welfare. There are plenty of other places to establish wind farms that are already near major transmission lines.

[Andy_H]

I attended a Texas Public Radio energy town hall meeting on 26 August where an interesting point was brought up concerning West Texas wind.

Only 10% of the electricity generated by current wind farms reaches San Antonio and points east - because there isn't enough infrastructure to bring the electricity to consumers.

Boone hasn't dropped any of his wind farm plans. He wanted to build the next phase in the Panhandle, but the back-ordered turbines (not arriving until 2011) will still arrive before the infrastructure is in place. The turbines will be used in other projects where the infrastructure exists so the power can flow.

It's my understanding that Texas' SB20 doesn't require that infrastructure improvements be in place until sometime in 2012.

Google "seco sb20" or "texas wind transmission constraints" for more info.

Andy

Retired USAF
Small business owner
Electric motorcycle operator
100% Windtricity subscriber
Pickens Plan Coordinator TX23

[hampdenwireless]

Ok. So Mr Pickens is going to make money and is looking out for his own interests. His ideas are sound and not too many others are taking action on the scale he proposes. We would be better off as a country if we built the infrastructure he needs and even subsidies the windmills then if we did not and they were not built.

We would be also be better off burning natural gas in cars. Even Mr Pickens's gas. His main selling points are true:

Less co2 output.
Nearly all domestic energy replacing foreign oil.
Lower ongoing costs vs oil.
More US jobs.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by ggood

The point is he wants government to pay big bucks for the major transmission lines (and condemnation of an access corridor) that would be necessary to carry electricity from wind turbines he would put on lands he owns in north Texas down to major metro areas. If it's such a great idea, let him pay for it. There are already major lines running through west Texas and along the Gulf Coast that can accomplish the same purpose, without additional cost. They just don't happen to benefit Pickens.

I don't believe that is a correct assessment. The capacity isn't there currently and getting the access for something this size is the role of govt. Utilities, railroads, pipelines, etc. have all had to lobby for such things. That is a fact of life. This is an issue in more places than one. Our regions with strong sustained winds don't coincide with the cities.

To really put this in perspective: We've got multi-trillion dollar "investments" in the Middle-East and elsewhere for what amount to energy access plans for ourselves and our allies. I can't see any reason to s*** a brick over transmission lines for clean power that doesn't benefit the nationalities and interests of persons who would do us harm.