Boone Pickens will be on CBS 60 Minutes tomorrow night explaining how windmills and natural gas will be a bridge to the future. He may imply that this future will bring better alternative energy sources. I am not an expert but am skeptical. How abundant is natural gas? Should it be used to preserve our automobile culture and to supplant foreign oil or conserved for other uses.

http://www.pickensplan.com

When I looked at Gail's headline, I immediately thought of stranded wind as a source for oil and gas. Others on the list have emphasized the possiblities of ammonia production using up stranded wind power and even becoming an energy storage solution. But, I think that there is so much in the way of oil and gas pipelines around that we may well look at the Sabatier and Fischer-Tropsch reactions as good ways to use extra wind power. Wind gets us hydrogen very efficiently and at a much lower cost than the nuclear power considered in the H2CAR proposal. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/12/4828.abstract Using carbon capture from existing fossil fuel plants or the bio-source carbon suggested in H2CAR means that we can avoid big mistakes like tarsands or CTL as we transition.

Gas reserves are growing (6% in the last year in the US http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/nat_gas.html) but I don't think we have to rely on them all that much longer into the future.

Chris

When I looked at Gail's first paragraph, I thought of a South African farmer calling her pet Ostriches home.

"It gets depressing hearing about our financial problems every day. I am sure a lot of people would rather talk about oil and natural gas, and about better prospects for the future. Improved technology is one factor that might make future production better than the bleak future that most of us are foreseeing today. It might even reduce costs, so that more oil and gas can be produced at the lower prices we are seeing today."

Just to be clear, producing more oil & gas at current lower prices
is anathema to the paramount requirement of discouraging fossil fuel dependence.

To put this in context, global food security is threatened by climate destabilization in a way that PO cannot achieve ;
it threatens the viability even of basic crops even by traditional subsistence farming methods -
without a stable climate, those methods do not function year-on-year.

How much of this Ostrich-tendency to actively ignore the potent climate threat
is actually based on the expectation that it's only the usual black African children who will suffer
(i.e. die slowly of starvation or of the ailments of impoverishment)
is very hard to fathom.

Suffice to say, if the expectation were of white American children dying slowly of starvation
as an exponentially destabilizing climate causes successive global crop failures,
or if the expectation were of the US facing national crop failures after such impoverishment that it can no longer fund food imports,
if either of those was the underlying expectation,
then I rather doubt that comments here would refer so easily to the prospects for advancing fossil fuels' production,
when what is needed, in the name of simple humanity, is their very rapid disavowal.

So is it now time that TOD's contributors sort out just which children we are going to care about, and how much ?

Regards,

Backstop
[farmer, forester & observer]

Just a note here, and not to dispute anything you're saying, but as an intentionally-child-free person, the whole "think of the children" argument totally turns me off in the biggest way possible.

I already did my part ... and more: My tax dollars support the breeders' offspring and I didn't get any of the procreative fun. How unfair is that?

Frankly, I couldn't give a cough about anyone's kids, African or N. American. Other people's kids cost me enough already, and I'm certainly not taking on any concern about how to increase my outlay. It's not like there's a worldwide shortage of ankle-biters.

The evaluation of T. Boone Pickens plan depends first on whether someone takes the climate crisis seriously, which is to say, on whether you look beyond a ten year horizon on water.

The T. Boone Pickens plan is to pump water from the Oglalla reservoir to Texas, use the same corridor to "unstrand" the wind resource in that area into the Texas, in the context of a broader plan to expand wind power substantially to free up NG for use by motor vehicles.

There's little to recommend the overall plan if the climate crisis is taken seriously. The first priority is to get coal-fired power taken offline, and for that we a combined program of more carbon-free or carbon-neutral power generation and substantial increases in energy efficiency.

Shifting the existing motor vehicle fleet to natural gas does nothing to shift the transport system to a more energy efficient mix of transport modes.

And if the wind power is offsetting natural gas, its not offsetting coal.

T. Boone Pickens' plan is easiest to understand if you view the most pressing problem raised by Peak Oil in terms of how to line T. Boone Pickens' pockets as opportunities in the oil industry decline with the decline in untapped oil reserves.

Developing the largest non-polluting, renewable energy source of electricity in the U.S. is a bad thing?

The problem with the Ogallala aquifer depletion would remain without the Pickens Plan. You only have to look to the Colorado river to see the future of the Ogallala.

If you have cable TV, please try to watch the episode of "Dirty Jobs" where they service a wind turbine. I never knew that a wind turbine is so delicate and complicated. The inside of a turbine leaks oil prodigiously. Many parts become clogged with bugs and dust. Without constant maintenance, lubrication, and replacement of spare parts, a wind turbine becomes permanently useless.

As a system it seems about as complex as military technology from fifty years ago.