Texas Newspaper Backs Pickens Plan

EDITORIAL

Break the curse of oil addiction
EDITORIAL BOARD
Wednesday, September 16, 2009

When T. Boone Pickens framed U.S. energy dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue, people couldn't agree fast enough. He launched an aggressive advertising campaign pushing wind and solar power as an alternative to imported oil in 2008.

With gasoline prices hovering at $4 a gallon and driving up the cost of anything that had to be shipped, plus the skyrocketing cost of fuel oil causing utility bill spikes, Pickens' message resonated.

Since then, gasoline prices have dropped, U.S. consumers aren't feeling as pinched at the pump, and the health care debate now commands the national attention.

As Pickens reminded American-Statesman editors and reporters this week, the national security threat posed by U.S. dependence on oil produced by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has not waned.

Neither has his interest in lessening that dependence. So Pickens is back on the stump, pushing legislation that would provide tax incentives for freight haulers to replace their diesel-burning 18-wheelers with rigs powered by natural gas.

Pickens, a billionaire oilman and staunch Texas Republican, has picked up support from U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, the majority leader; President Bill Clinton; and Al Gore, the former vice president, among others.

The reasoning behind the idea is simple: Big rigs are constantly on the move, spewing fossil fuel emissions in their wake. Incentives for trucking companies to buy natural gas-burning vehicles would lessen dependence on foreign oil and contribute to cleaner air. Transmission and delivery costs would be miniscule when compared to the savings, Pickens said.

Though battery powered vehicles are hailed as the transportation future, batteries aren't practical for powering 18-wheelers, Pickens says, and there are transportation experts who concur.

Pickens built a fortune by punching holes in the ground and remains a controversial figure. His critics may be wary of the motive, but there is no denying his core message: Our country is addicted to buying oil from people who don't like us.

Those old enough to remember the shock induced by the oil embargo of the 1970s should also recall that we've been talking about reducing our dependence on foreign oil ever since. The talk stage is as far as we usually get.

Like the junkies we are, we promise to get clean after just one more fix. And so it goes until the next time OPEC dries up the supply and drives up the price of U.S. energy.

We should not let desire to argue over the messenger and his message rob us of the necessity to shed our oil dependence.

Rigs that burn natural gas may not be the whole solution, but that certainly is a move in the right direction.

You need to set a username for your Statesman.com account before you can comment.
Set Username

Alexander wrote:
News Flash: I deeply regret to inform the Leftist wackos in this blog that the coup de grace to solar and wind “energy sprawl” was administered earlier today by Senator Lamar Alexander in the Wall Street Journal. “Energy Sprawl and the Green Economy.” Link follows: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404762971139026.html Here is one passage from his article: “Let's put this into perspective: We could line 300 miles of mountaintops from Chattanooga, Tenn., to Bristol, Va., with wind turbines and still produce only one-quarter the electricity we get from one reactor on one square mile at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.” Its gonna be nuclear power, people.
# Posted on 9/17/2009 8:52:45 PM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


ABraut wrote:
In the history of nuclear power, there have been two notable incidents. As of 2007 there were 436 operating nuclear power plants and 48 under construction, none of them are named Chernobyl.

# Posted on 9/17/2009 4:12:12 PM Report AbuseName *


atheist wrote:
safe, cost effective nuclear power plants =Chernobyl
# Posted on 9/17/2009 3:15:36 PM Report AbuseName *

eddieleggs wrote:
Obama's alma mater

[Bertha] Lewis told ABC News that all the negative attention is a "modern day form of McCarthyism" and said ACORN's efforts help make sure "poor people, young people, minorities are participating in this democracy." "There is an undertone of racism here. I think they're basically saying these people shouldn't be trusted, how could they be trusted? You know, they're all poor black and brown people," Lewis said.

Where's faux Reverend Jesse Jackson in all this? Holed up somewhere dreaming of castrating Obama? Can you believe these people? This is the result of fifty years on the liberal plantation. People from the gutter to the White House shouting "Racism!" whenever they're challenged with the truth.

Special thanks to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Food Network for providing Obama cover while he ran with this pack of scumbags.

# Posted on 9/17/2009 2:18:16 PM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


Greenie wrote:
Power Plants take up too much space. Smaller outlets are being used in other countries, i.e. Germany. There was an article in fastcompany.com about a smaller grid that produces power at a more local level. Sounded promising.
# Posted on 9/17/2009 1:59:51 PM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


Alexander wrote:
The obvious answer for power plants is cost effective nuclear power, coal, natural gas and low-cost versions of solar and wind. However, due to siting problems and the huge spacial footprint issues, solar and wind will never be more than token solutions. The obvious answer for mobile power is domestic gasoline, natural gas and short range batteries powered by nuclear plants. The answer remains: ALL THE ABOVE.
# Posted on 9/17/2009 12:35:37 PM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


ktacorp7 wrote:
We need to build electric generating plants that operate on GAS not oil, coal or other polutants.. That solves the issue of distribution..
# Posted on 9/17/2009 10:58:22 AM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


Reeve wrote:
OK, look. Electric cars are laughable. 70% of US electricity is from burning coal. So electric cars run on coal. Coal pollutes via black particulates, SO2, oxides of nitrogen (aka acid rain), and heavy metals like mercury. Electrical energy should be natural gas fired in place of coal, but the coal lobby is vastly more powerful than the NG lobby. And, as you al ought to know by now, the US is run by lobby. It's that simple.
# Posted on 9/17/2009 9:55:09 AM Report AbuseName *
E-mail Address *
Reason for abuse *


Texan by Marriage wrote:
Actually if you take Pickens points and blend them with a diversified production through renewables, you get there. If we put hot water and solar panels on houses and industrial spaces. There is no need for large scale plants. In fact we can reduce electric and gas consumption by 8% in TX by using solar hot water combined with on demand gas. This is a huge amount of energy savings. Also, if we put some of the new thin film solar on top of the box stores using net metering, we could keep from adding any additional plants for the next 20 years. If we use our heads and think through the issues, we can solve energy, security, and pollution issues just by working smarter.

Alexander wrote:
No one is against using natural gas for vehicles. We used in naturla gas in pickup trucks in West Texas back in the 1960's. Likewise, no one is against "ending our dependency" on foreign oil. BUT it makes absolutely no sense at all for the British and Chinese to come in and develop new Oil fields 200 miles south of Houston in the outer continental shelf. That action will INCREASE our dependency on "foreign" oil as the owners will be foreigners.