It is, IMHO, possible to conserve NG faster than it depletes. 22% of USA electrical generation from wind will *NOT* displace the 22% produced by NG, as claimed by Mr. Pickens. Time of day, seasonal demands (summer peak for most US electrical demand, summer minimum for wind) will, SWAG, displace slightly more coal than NG at these levels (absent pumped storage).

OTOH, increased insulation, better windows, tankless gas hot water heaters, solar water heaters and perhaps even wind driven ammonia production will save significant NG. Greater industrial efficiency will save even more.

Wind should be PART of a larger strategy for reduced NG use. Devoting some NG for specialty transportation (city buses, airport shuttles, garbage trucks, etc.) is a good strategy IMHO.

Fewer VMT (vehicle miles traveled) in smaller cars/SUVs is a better strategy than converting them to NG.

T Boone Pickens is NOT in favor of anything that he cannot make money off of. That much was crystal clear in a conference call with his staff.

Best Hopes for Better Plans than the Pickens Plan,

Alan

If things are as you say, then why does the Pickens/McClendon plan need massive government subsidies to make it happen? Why have they unleashed a $58+ million advertising campaign to persuade the public and policy makers of the need for these subsidies?

One needs to remember the Pickens/McClendon plan is a two-part plan:

Part 1--22% of U.S. electricity is currently generated using natural gas. Part 1 entails using wind power to replace the electricity that is currently generated using natural gas.

Part 2--Once the natural gas that is currently being used to generate electricity is freed up, use that natural gas as a transport fuel.

Why can't I support Part 1 without supporting Part 2? This is deja vu of Bush's Manichean world construct: "You're either with us or against us."

To begin with, I, along with others such as Bonnie Tatom of the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, are skeptical of these reports of an abundance of natural gas:

Tatom said the PUC, which has endorsed the need for new gas supplies in Oregon, was exploring the implications -- including the need for LNG -- of increasing domestic production. New production from unconventional sources is encouraging, analysts at the PUC contend. But many of those predicting breathtaking new supplies, such as T. Boone Pickens, are big investors in natural gas and wind production.

Moreover, U.S. demand for gas is picking up because of the effects of population growth, the drive to shut down dirty coal plants and the need to back up renewable resources such as wind farms with more reliable generation fired by natural gas. Meanwhile, Canada's National Energy Board says consumers in the Northwest can expect to see more of the Canadian supplies they rely on diverted to help extract oil from tar sands in Alberta.

"There's a lot going on," Tatom said, "so I'm not sure we're willing to take the those reports of 'awash in gas' at face value."

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2008/08/with_wholesale_pric...

You have to remember this perception that we are "awash in gas" is coming from one place, namely the $58+ million Pickens/McClendon media blitz:

A study released Wednesday by a Washington foundation that promotes the use of natural gas indicates that the U.S. has enough supply of the fuel to last for more than a century.

The study, prepared for the American Clean Skies Foundation by Chicago-based consulting firm Navigant Consulting Inc., showed that the nation has 2,247 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves.

That would be an 118-year supply at 2007 production levels, said Rick Smead, the consulting group's director and a co-author of the study. He said the U.S. consumes 22 trillion cubic feet of gas per year.

http://www.news-star.com/news/x223020244/Study-indicates-abundant-supply...

Of course McClendon is the chairman of American Clean Skies Foundation.

The use of natural gas for a transport fuel would also affect other uses of natural gas, as was not lost on this farmer who expressed his concerns during a town hall meeting in a small community in Iowa:

One man later asked if already tight margins in farming would be even tighter when demand for natural gas increases the price of anhydrous ammonia, a natural gas product.

"It probably will happen," Pickens said. "I can't solve everything."

http://www.lemarssentinel.com/story/1453242.html

Even though I am pretty much sold on Part 1 of the Pickens/McClendon plan, I am far from being sold on Part 2.

But even then, if they can bring Part 2 about without massive tax-payer subsidies they are lobbying for, I say "Go for it!"

My understanding of likely NG supply, which comes primarily from readin TOD's Gail the Actuary, is that it will be reasonably available for perhaps another decade or two. Displacing NG consumption for baseline power by wind (or solar, or even nuclear) is a good thing. IMHO the best use for NG is as a backup for time variable sources, such as wind, and solar. We should be discouraging uses with poor thermodynamic efficiency, such as space heating, and using NG to dry crops etc. If we can convert some currently diesel powered mobile uses, such as trucking, buses, and construction equipment to NG instead of diesel, that would be a plus for the short-term. We need to keep in mind, that the most critical part of the petroleum based fuel demand is for diesel. Many of these same diesel uses, would also be natural places for hyrid electric as well.

I am not really concerned with whether T Boone stands to make money from his plan. The important thing is to start making progress against the twin problems of oil import dependence, and global warming emmisions. It is worth paying some subsidies, if they they will speed the process.