Pickens promotes wind, gas at energy forum
Billionaire Texan says U.S. could cut imports 38%
By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published July 10, 2008 at 2:33 p.m.
Photo by Jamie Rector / Bloomberg News
T. Boone Pickens, a billionaire energy investor, says his energy plan could save $300 billion in oil imports annually. He plans to spend up to $58 million on the effort. "I think I know more about energy than anyone else does," he said.
The U.S. could cut oil imports by 38 percent if it generated enough wind power to provide 22 percent of the country's electricity, and use natural gas primarily to fuel cars, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens said Thursday.
"I want one loser - foreign oil," Pickens said at a news conference at the Colorado Oil & Gas Association's 20th annual Rocky Mountain Gas Strategy Conference & Investment Forum in Denver.
Pickens said the country is on the verge of a disaster because of its dependence on oil from countries that don't like the U.S. much and that his plan could save $300 billion in imports annually.
He characterized the country's reliance on foreign oil as "similar to being on drugs."
Pickens unveiled his energy plan - which he thinks could be accomplished in less than 10 years with the "right leadership" - this week, complete with the Web site PickensPlan.com.
He said he realized Americans are confused and need to be educated about energy policy, and he plans to spend up to $58 million on the effort.
Pickens said he decided, " 'Hell, I'll do it myself.' I think I know more about energy than anyone else does."
Pickens, 80, is building a huge wind farm in Texas. But he said it's easy to do wind projects these days, and that he's not receiving a direct financial benefit by promoting his energy plan.
About 22 percent of the country's electricity generation now comes from natural gas. In its simplest form, Pickens' plan is to replace that with wind power, and use natural gas to fuel automobiles instead.
George Douglas, spokesman for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, noted that NREL was the lead lab on a recent Department of Energy report that concurs the U.S. can get 20 percent of its electricity from wind. It's currently less than 2 percent. But the DOE has a more conservative timetable for doing so - 2030, rather than within the next decade.
The technology exists, Douglas said, but the challenge is distributing the wind energy from the farms in the middle of the country to the coasts where most Americans live. In addition, the manufacturing capacity of wind turbines would have to be boosted.
Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz made similar points. Xcel is a leader in wind energy, deriving about 10 percent of its electricity generation from wind.
"We're all aiming for the same thing - to lessen the dependence on foreign oil," Stutz said. But he echoed former Vice President Al Gore in noting there's no silver bullet and that many things will have to be tried.
For example, Xcel also is supporting new technologies such as battery-operated vehicles that could supply excess electricity during peak demand.
Pickens acknowledged additional infrastructure would be needed to distribute the wind energy across the country, and that some natural gas would still be required for peak electricity demand. But he said those and other challenges, such as encouraging automakers to build more cars that run on natural gas, could be overcome if an administration sees energy dependence as an emergency.
He also said he supports solar energy, hybrid vehicles, ethanol and oil exploration and development. But domestic oil reserves are in decline, Pickens noted, and he sees natural gas and wind power as the cleanest, easiest routes to energy independence.
Energy independence has been a mantra of a number of past administrations, but Pickens characterized the country as having a "pitiful, pitiful case of leadership" on the issue and going 40 years without a real energy plan.
Why? "Because of cheap oil (in the past)," Pickens said.
Pickens said representatives of John McCain and Barack Obama have called to discuss his plan. He also briefed the White House eight weeks ago, including Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman.
"We talked. They were very interested, but nothing came of it," Pickens said.
smithje@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5155
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
Read the Rocky's coverage of Colorado's cannibal, Alfred Packer, in 1886.
July 11, 2008
3:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Last time that we had a plan for energy was with Carter. Pickens has it right. Now, we need to diversify our matrix. It needs to include wind, but should also include a LOT more solar thermal and geo-thermal. In addition, we need to help nukes a long. It is in our favor to not rely on any one technology, but to have a matrix of these. While we have a lot of wind, it tends to not blow hard on hot days. That is why you want the solar thermal and geo-thermal.
Finally, we are about to move to electrical cars. There are several major technologies that push us there. In particular, Tesla has forced the japanese companies into pure EVs, while Detroit is still pushing the hybrid. WHat it amounts to, is that within another 3 years, japanese (and most likely all Asian) companies will be hard core into pure electric, and we will hear from Detroit that they are laying off a great deal more ppl, and re-tagging chinese cars because they went down the hybrid path (detroit seriously needs to quit hiring neo-cons; lack of ability to think, manage, or even be ethical).
July 11, 2008
6:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Wind generated electricity will have no effect whatsoever on our oil imports. Wind only substitutes for natural gas, as it does not operate all of the time to even displace coal. OUR ELECTRICITY DOES NOT COME FROM OIL! I wish lying to the public was illegal.
Natural gas prices are just as unstable as oil, and have been setting records of their own in recent years. The only two beneficial products of natural gas as a transportation fuel are cleaner emissions, and the prospect that we could cut down on imported foreign fuel if and only if we gassify coal to create synthetic natural gas. Increasing gas use alone will not reduce imports, as we already are importing liquified natural gas. Increasing its use will only increase its imports.
We need electric cars and nuclear energy to solve our oil problem. Every other idea only scratches the surface.
July 11, 2008
9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
CoLoradoCitizen writes:
bigfoot. Last nights world news covered this well. Big oil companies hold the leases for drilling and have for decades. Why dont they drill? Becuase it is a HUGE risk. They lose up to one billion dollars for every drilling effort that does not pan out. There's alot of e-mails of misinformation saying we're reliant on foreign oil because the Democrats WONT let us drill here. Sadly, some are dumb enough to believe it. 6 years of republican controlled congress and a republican criminal president can and DID do everything they wanted to. They could've EASILY passed any legislation they wanted to, but obviously, didn't. So dont blame the dems for not drilling locally. The republican congressmen do EXACTLY what they're told to do by the oil companies that paid their way, and if the oil companies wanted to drill in alaska, or off the coast of anywhere, the puppets could've made it happen. John McCain was AGAINST drilling off-shore and in alaskafor 10 years. He was adamant that it is wrong. Only less than two months ago he did one of his famous flip-flops and changed his mind. He'll say anything to get elected. He spoke up and spoke out about dubbya's tax cuts being pure idiocy, that they would create massive debt. And they did. Now? To get elected, suddenly he's all for the same tax cuts he spoke out against since 2001. Flippin and floppin and flippin and floppin.
July 11, 2008
10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Hank/Sasquatch; The companies can drill. They hold NUMEROUS leases. Have them drill away. But as you pointed out, ALL of the rigs are in use. SO what is your issue?
July 11, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
SMOKESCREEN ALERT:
Lemmings unite and run off the cliff together as you always do. Traditional supply and demand economics are not at work here when it comes to the price of oil. The evidence is insurmountable. Were they at work, news of new supplies and declining demand would absolutely and immediately cause reduction in price not increase in price. At work here is unregulated oil speculation pure and simple--maybe not so simple--and it continues to work because of the SMOKESCREEN erected by two parties who want it to be perpetuated indefinitely: (a) the oil speculators, oil industry, and oil producers who all gain from artificially high prices, and (b) the environmentalists who want radical change in our usage of fossil fuel to prevent a theorized climate crisis and related, unstoppable environmental damage--in other words, for the first time ever, the environmentalists and the oil producers are on the same side because both are gaining for the moment. [note: We should be meeting the environmentalists agenda regardless of oil prices, but we've never moved on the issues more quickly than recently.] As long as we don't see through the SMOKESCREEN, we lemmings will continue to pay outrageously inflated prices for gasoline and allow these allied socio-political constructs to run out economy into the ground. The correct path is simple, we must legislate the speculators out of existence and we must continue to follow the environmentalists agenda toward reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Our economy can rebound quickly, but we will always be vulnerable to this over-reliance on non-domestically produced energy in the future if we do not wean ourselves as quickly as possible and once and for all. There is a virtually unlimited and FREE source of energy arriving here across the vacuum of space some 93 million miles away that we are allowing to do little more than over heat our planet so we can spend billions of dollars annually on air-conditioning. That's right, the Sun. Our own star, a gift from the heavens that has bathed us in ambient light and heat energy for billions of years. We choose to virtually ignore this source of energy at our own peril largely because we insist, instead, on believing propaganda from Oil and Power companies who stand to lose their cash cow if we were all to switch to FREE energy. Any time people can get you to pay for something you are used to getting for free, they are a winner and you are a loser. Think about bottled water as a classic example. Plants are far, far older creatures, and they've perfected this harnessing of solar energy to the degree that they sustain their own lives and nearly all animal and fungal live on the planet as well. SOLAR ENERGY IS THE ONLY WAY OUT OF OUR ENERGY CRISIS.
July 11, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
SteveM- WELL STATED and great post!
I have been saying much the same about the prices of Oil and Gasoline for over 12 months now - but not quite as well put.
Just a couple of facts that can be checked -
1) Gasoline production and Refinery Utilization are down over all in the first 6 month of 08
2) Gasoline delivered at the pump has been down (below last year and below a running average) as well - until just recently.
3)US Crude oil production over the past months is down as well - and imports are up.
4) Supplies of Crude in the US have remained at average levels or better over the past 9 months, and despite increased production and oil on the world markets - the price keeps rising.
a. Oil demand world wide has leveled off recently as well
The only thing I disagree with in your post is that Solar being the ONLY way - Solar can and will play a big part - but we need other technologies and sources, so as to not rely on only one.
The long term cost of Solar is now on par with current per KWH costs. Guess what companies are getting into solar panel production .. Shell Oil is one of the biggest.
Considering all of that and Big Oil company profits are up well over 200% - at record levels - and they are saying the margin on revenues is on par with other industries - but they control the price and the price (revenue) is up about 200% in the same time frame -
I say - Follow the money!
Who do they think they are fooling? -You and I, every time we fill our tanks.
It's time to call on Congress to investigate and DO something!
July 11, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Diff,
If the oil companies are controlling the price of oil then why hasn't the Democrats, who control Congress, has not created an investigation and brought charges against this monopoly? Are the Democrats paid and bought for by the oil companies? It is so obvious that the oil companies are taking advantage of us but then Congress does nothing? Why?
July 11, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Why would the oil companies want to drill off shore, which costs billions to drill when they have 68 million acres of land to drill, which only costs millions to drill? That makes no economic sense.
July 11, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
vvvv,
Obviously you have not heard of the Chevrolet Volt that will primarily use electricity (lithium batteries, which Tesla uses)but then have a back up gas engine. If we all went with EV engines only, then what do we do when we want to travel a distance of more than 200 miles. What about people who drive a lot for their job?
I guess they will have to stop and re-charge every 200 miles. If we had a hybrid though, like the Volt, we would be able to use the electric engine when travelling around the city but then use the gas engine when need to travel a little further. That actually makes more sense to me than just having a EV.