T. Boone Pickens plans for the substitution of wind for natural gas in the production of electric power are interesting, although his chief motives are not directed at global warming. His primary goal is to lower America's huge dependence on foreign oil imports.
The key, Pickens says, is that wind energy can be used as a substitute for natural gas now burned to generate electricity. That, in turn, will make far more natural gas available for use as a transportation fuel. Pickens' plan is to produce enough wind power within 10 years to divert 20% of the natural gas now used to fuel power plants for use in cars and trucks. That's much more aggressive a growth plan for the development of wind energy than envisioned by the Depart of Energy, which doesn't expect the USA to be getting 20% of its total energy needs from wind until at least 2030.
Read the entire article..
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industrie ... ergy_N.htm
Now the main feature in his plan that differs from many is that he realizes a critical truth. That is that natural gas is about the only transportation fuel that can replace oil/gasoline/diesel quickly without inventing new engines. Most current car and truck fleets can fairly easily be converted to natural gas.
The problem is that, like in California, we are using almost all the natural gas to make electric power.
If, and its a big IF.....we can produce more power from wind and nuclear, then it frees up natural gas for our transportation needs...
All the other plans for electric cars and hydrogen cars are years away from being put into effect.
Using either wind or nuclear power in this conversion process also makes great strides in limiting greenhouse gases.
But Boone Pickens is a advocate of all forms of power because he knows about the reality of our growing needs. While doing all he can with wind, he knows the limits of solar over he next 20 years and realizes we are going to need a mixture of everything.
He still favors new drilling anywhere you can find oil as well as large scale wind and nuclear. He is a realist. He knows our power needs are not going to go down and he knows the limitations and expense of solar solutions on a massive scale are not currently practical to supply a modern industrial economy.
But even if you disagree with him, at least his plans have a chance of limiting the growth of greenhouse gases. Most plans put forth by other groups are mostly pie in the sky.
The biggest stumbling block in his plans are the limitations of the grid.
If you could build huge amounts of wind power in the midwest, you still couldn't get it to the people without a crash project for new power lines.
Anyway, read the article.......its in all the media, TV and print.
Include nuclear with wind and you have a potential effective solution for large production of electric power without global warming effects.
Obviously Boone Pickens wants to make money but no one expects him to iinvest for zero return.
His alternative is far better than more coal.....and given the way our imported energy needs are going, public opinion is soon going to be demanding power from any source....regardless of impact on the environment. When people get economically scared as they are now, they'll opt for even dirty coal rather than lose jobs and houses.
Right now, the polling is swinging greatly in favor for more drilling everywhere, coasts and in Alaska. Wind power can please most groups and if fairly cost effective. Solar is not at this time.
Throw in nuclear which is gaining favor and we'll have a small chance of limiting the growth of CO2... Actual reduction is a whole other kettle of fish.
Wind for natural gas.......a win win... Any objections?