Whoa, evnow - that was a significant edit!
Let me guess... You're not a fan. Apparently Rubin isn't either. Let's see - what's a Rubin? Oh. He's a Canadian economist from a government and brokerage house background that apparently believes the world will go to hell in a handbasket when oil runs out. Might we agree that he's looking at the 'world' from the 'inside' - from what Einstein suggested is the same mindset that created the problem? Is it any surprise that one that uses a red crayon 24/7 might not be able to see blue or yellow?
Unfortunately, the opening paragraph of the linked article you linked is just plain wrong. It's not anyone's fault but Rubin's that he starts from an erroneous position, heads in the wrong direction, then blames Pickens when Rubin gets lost. :lol:
The goal of the Pickens plan is to REDUCE the amount of oil imported from HOSTILE areas - not to eliminate all imports or get the US off oil.
Some of us might have noticed that the "grand obstructionist party' does not recognize environmental damage or global warming, but they do understand and respond to security. One doesn't get very far in Paris when speaking Swahili.
In late 2008, the Department of Energy published their "20% Wind by 2030" report:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/
Why do we care - we don't really use oil to generate electricity (1-2%), right?
Pickens and the other companies planting wind turbines in Texas looked at the DOE report and said that if we got going we could get 20% wind in 10 years - not 20.
Pickens went to the next step - if we can free up 20% of our electrical generation, what can we free-up to use somewhere else?
Trucking uses a LOT of liquid fuel. Yes - it would be cool to use more trains, but we don't, and they aren't suitable in our near term for terminal to terminal transport. We absolutely CAN rework our entire distribution system but it's not going to happen anytime soon. So what CAN we do - and quickly?
The natural gas currently used for power generation can be diverted to other uses quickly and for the least amount of money. Stock diesel engines use natural gas or propane to boost power the way gasoline engines can use nitrous oxide. It's a lot easier to modify a large diesel engine to burn natural gas - and the vehicles are already sized to carry the large tanks. And large truck emissions standards are worse than small vehicles - switching from diesel to natural gas cuts a LOT of carcinogens, nano-scale soot, and other emissions.
Natural gas detractors suggest that the nation would have to build a complete infrastructure - and that it would be useless once we run out of gas. Except...the target trucking companies generally have their own routes and their own maintenance and fuel depots. New 'fuel stations' get added to the main transport corridors only after the company determines that they're necessary - 800 to 1000 miles apart, give or take.
I'm a regional rep for the Pickens Plan. There are things I like - it's a PLAN! It's centered around planting wind and distribution infrastructure. Reducing diesel use in relatively dirty engines to replace it with a cleaner fuel is a good thing. Smacking our politicians in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper to get them to change course - especially when backed by a 1.6million strong grass-roots 'army' is also a good thing. Pickens is putting a TON of his own money and time into promoting an alternative to 'more of the same'.
I'm not happy about fracking and write my reps and senators, the president, and the EPA regularly to to push for industry regulation to protect our water and health.
Throw rocks if you wish - but attach a copy of your plan because I'm looking for something better if it exists!
Andy
