Like most of you I have been seeing and hearing about the Pickens Plan for energy. I’ve read through most of it and it seems to me that it is saying we could do a lot to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by better utilizing wind and natural gas energy that we have here. While the plan I read does not pretend to end dependence on oil, foreign or domestic, it sure looks like it is a good idea.
I can remember seeing a good deal about using compressed natural gas (CNG) as a transport fuel around here nearly 20 years ago. Everything I saw about it then looked very promising. I was doing some photo work for a compressor company that ONG was using so I got to see and hear several presentations on CNG motor fuel. The biggest hurdles at the time seemed to be the cost of the compressors for individual purchase, so you could fuel from your home gas line, and the relatively short range of about 100 miles per tank as well as the initial cost to convert a vehicle from gasoline only to gasoline or CNG. There were some tax credits at the time for the conversion, but there was still a substantial cash outlay for the individual driver. If the price of oil had kept climbing at the time, we might be using a lot of CNG fuel for transport now, but alas the big oil bust came and Tulsa was no longer the oil capitol.
Flash forward to the present with SUVs everywhere, fuel prices higher than ever and a much larger share of the oil being imported. Sure, CNG isn’t the total answer. It’s still a fossil fuel, still produces some greenhouse gas, though very little compared to a gasoline, and isn’t practical for long distance trips. The things that really stuck with me about CNG is the dramatic improvement in safety compared to gasoline and the reduction in engine wear.
In looking around for information on the Pickens Plan, I also find several harsh criticisms of the plan. Oddly, most of the complaints seem to be more about Pickens and less about the Plan. Depnding upon who you read or listen to, Pickens has horns and a tail because he is a billionaire energy mogul and his BP Capital Management fund has pieces of Halliburton and Schlumberger, among others. Wow, you mean this highly successful energy guy has strong investment positions in two of the largest, most successful oilfield service companies in the world. You’d think he runs this BP fund just to make money or something. Omigosh, what kind of business deal is this? Doesn’t he know that the primary purpose of every business, especially capital management funds is supposed to be to save the planet and all the people on it. </sarcasm>
Anyway, back to the real point – the perfect plan. Whether or not you like Pickens or his business practices really isn’t the point here. The point is that someone has finally put out a plan to get us going on using less oil and particularly less imported oil. No, it is not a perfect plan and it does not solve the global energy or environment problem, but it is a concrete start, which is much more than we are hearing from any of our political leaders, lobby groups or global conferences.
There are no perfect plans or perfect solutions.
For thousands of years we have been trying to figure out the best way to lure fish out of the water and are still trying to figure out the best way. Don’t believe me, ask anyone in the patent business what area has more patents than any other. My point here is that while we chip away at each and every proposal as being imperfect and not solving everything, the ship is sinking. No, opening up more areas for offshore drilling or the Alaskan wilderness will not “solve” all our energy needs. Likewise, sending a few million doses of vaccines for children in Africa won’t completely solve all the vaccine-preventable disease problems in Africa, but it makes a lot more sense than letting them suffer or die while we wait for a “perfect solution.”
If we are going to move forward on the global energy challenge, we have to be willing to try a variety of things, even if they only offer a partial solution. The experience we glean from these efforts will most likely lead us to finding things that offer a bigger part of the solution. We are not using just one thing now. We use coal, gas, oil, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind now. The real challenge is finding ways to change the proportions while we also look for new alternatives. If gas prices had stayed high and kept going up in the late ’80s, we’d have a lot more fuel-efficient vehicles, mass transit and use of motorcycles and scooters now.
The main thing is to get going now! Stop rearranging the deck chairs and debating the social conscience of the vendor that supplied the lifeboats.
