Could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1/3 in 10 years. Sounds good to me. No surprise the idea is coming from an oil man - whom I'm guessing knows a little about energy.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I agree that this is good to see--someone who is putting serious money behind alt energy.
...but, three things:
1. Absolutely NO WAY wind supplies 20% of our total electricity, probably ever, but certainly not in the next couple decades (and not just turbines in the "wind corridor"). 10% would be a more reasonable goal for the next 10 or 15 years. http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.html
2. The real progress in the short term comes from conservation. I'd rather hear Pickens say he's going to make money off of conservation programs rather than off of developing new energy sources.
3. Making a plan or setting a goal is obviously a positive step, but I'm not getting too excited until some actions are taken, such as physically breaking ground on some of these giant farms of wind turbines in TX. It's easy to plan something, and as such there have been many "plans" in the past, but we end up with nothing to show for them.
fair enough on points 1 and 3. i saw this as a headline on cnn, which made it seem like it warranted more attention than your average "plan."
with regards to conservation, your point may be true, but regardless, we still need sources of energy. so i see this as a separate issue. (plus, we can't force india and china to "conserve.")
we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil via conservation, but decrease it ever moreso by finding exploiting alt sources.
plus, alt sources could also be cleaner.
anyhow, don't exactly see how private industry can make money via conservation. in theory, the govt could give tax breaks towards conservation or conversely, tax higher high consumption...which i guess is what the hybrid tax break is and the higher gas prices effectively achieve w/o govt interference.
2 comments:
I agree that this is good to see--someone who is putting serious money behind alt energy.
...but, three things:
1. Absolutely NO WAY wind supplies 20% of our total electricity, probably ever, but certainly not in the next couple decades (and not just turbines in the "wind corridor"). 10% would be a more reasonable goal for the next 10 or 15 years.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration.html
2. The real progress in the short term comes from conservation. I'd rather hear Pickens say he's going to make money off of conservation programs rather than off of developing new energy sources.
3. Making a plan or setting a goal is obviously a positive step, but I'm not getting too excited until some actions are taken, such as physically breaking ground on some of these giant farms of wind turbines in TX. It's easy to plan something, and as such there have been many "plans" in the past, but we end up with nothing to show for them.
fair enough on points 1 and 3. i saw this as a headline on cnn, which made it seem like it warranted more attention than your average "plan."
with regards to conservation, your point may be true, but regardless, we still need sources of energy. so i see this as a separate issue. (plus, we can't force india and china to "conserve.")
we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil via conservation, but decrease it ever moreso by finding exploiting alt sources.
plus, alt sources could also be cleaner.
anyhow, don't exactly see how private industry can make money via conservation. in theory, the govt could give tax breaks towards conservation or conversely, tax higher high consumption...which i guess is what the hybrid tax break is and the higher gas prices effectively achieve w/o govt interference.
Post a Comment