Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds
by Meteor Blades
Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM PDT
At Climate Progress, Joseph Romm writes:
Memo to T. Boone Pickens: Your energy plan is half-brilliant, half-dumb
The Phone Call — based on a true story
Major cable network: What do you think of T. Boone Pickens’ latest energy plan ?
Climate Progress: Half of it is great, the big push on wind power. Heck, even the Bush administration says wind power could be 20% of U.S. electricity. But the notion that we would use the wind power to free up natural gas in order to fuel a transition to natural gas vehicles makes no sense. Why would we go to the trouble of switching our vehicle fleet from running on one expensive fossil fuel to another expensive fossil fuel? Any freed up natural gas should be used to displace coal....
Major cable network: I was hoping you liked the whole plan. That way we could use you on the show.... You don’t have any ideas of who might like the whole thing?
Climate Progress [Long pause, crickets chirp, the wind sighs, sea levels rise a few meters]: No. The people who will like the renewables part probably won’t be thrilled about the fossil fuel part, and vice versa.
Major cable network: Thanks. I’m sure we will find some reason to use you soon.
I am thinking about working that into a screenplay about a mild-mannered blogger for a great metropolitan progressive think tank who sacrifices his chance to be on television because he refuses to endorse an inane idea. I was looking at Matt Damon to play me, especially now that he has put on a little weight.
You can read about Swiftboater Pickens's energy plan here or straight from the horse's mouth here and what Man is 5 and other Kossacks have to say here, and A Siegel has to say here.
Romm's take on the subject is the most complete so far, however, and it is devastating:
The Pickens Plan, however, is based on the utterly impractical idea that "Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel."
Uhh, never gonna happen, T. Boone. Never. The most obvious reason is the gross inefficiency of the entire plan.
Right now, "We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity." Most of that electricity comes from gas burned in combined cycle gas turbines at an overall efficiency of up to 60%. Why in the world would the federal government — or anyone else — spend billions and billion of dollars on natural gas fueling stations and natural gas vehicles in order to burn the gas with an efficiency of 15% to 20%? Natural gas is simply too useful and expensive to squander in such a fashion.
The Overnight News Digest is posted.
- ::
