I know wikipedia isn't a legit source, but i'm not trying to get this published in a scholarly journal.



http://www.pickensplan.com/

You might consider going to this site to get information, the video is about 5 minutes and you can get a good taste of the basics.

My amatuer analysis is this:
Considering the lack other public education campaigns, I am reluctantly in support of this. It is a double edged sword, but it is the only comprehensive set of ideas anyone has put in front of the general public to reduce oil imports. It seems like this is the type of thing where the good ideas will gain attention, while the worse ones are cast aside.

Some of the caveats I can think of:

Why CNG cars?
If we're truly the "Saudia Arabia of Wind", then why not just shift to electric cars now? It seems this is where we'll be after CNG, so why go through that.
We have the technology! Electric cars were developed before diesel and gasoline engines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car). We have the infastructure! Most American garages has at least 1 electrical outlet, so why build or retrofit filling stations to sell CNG.

What about coal?
We should be more concerned about coal than oil. Then why aren't we? Because it's so damn cheap. Money talks. Very loudly in fact.
Most of America doesn't know about mountaintop removal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal). Its probably best that way, otherwise coal wouldn't be so cheap. Let me add, that coal adds about 15% more CO2 into the atmosphere than petroleum.

To me, it seems the best modification I could suggest would be to displace coal with natural gas in terms of electricity production, and then use electricity to power our cars instead of a natural resource. Now, I can only speculate on the environmental aspects of this beast. I'm not going to even touch the economic or financial apects of my thoughts. So I'll continue...

I'm a different shade of green. While I'm all for wind power and less carbon intense methods of energy, I recognize that these are not without fault.

You might be thinking that I'm going to ramble about flocks of birds flying through windmills on windfarms. Well, I could, but that isn't my main concern. Its the roads and fences that come with these windmill pads that concern me. In this aspect, its really no different than a bunch of oil rigs (http://www.huntingandfishingjournal....drillpads.jpg).

There will be some sort of environmental footprint. Roads and fences will create more boundaries for plants and wildlife to overcome.
33% of the mortality rate of Lesser Prairie Chickens is due to fences (http://www.suttoncenter.org/LPCH. html). It seems that putting up more will only increase this. Let me remind you that this is just one species in one small area between west Texas and North Dakota. With cooperation with land owners and energy companies, these are impacts that can be minimized, and should be.

While Pickens Plan won't solve every problem, it will handle some of them. Even he understands that it is more or less a compromise. So like I said, I will reluctantly support it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better option.

Here in Texas they are moving forward with this "magic bullet". Problem is, all energy bills will now increase by $4 a month to pay for the lines that have to be built to transport the energy from the wind farms to the cities. On top of that, in Texas they are estimating that it will only provide enough power for 3 million people. There's 3 mil in Houston proper. So what about all the people in DFW, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso, not to mention the suburbs? They are going to pay $4 a year for energy that most will never even use!

I'm all for alternative energy, but there's still plenty of fossil fuels to be had. They are cheaper and abundant in the USA. If you are concerned about global warming (I'm not) that's a topic for discussion as well.

George Carlin (I'm chasing rabbits now) did a great bit on global warming. Youtube it if you haven't heard it already.

sure there's plenty to be had, but are they really cheap?
visit this link and detirmine the costs:
Mountaintop removal mining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transport is a critical issue. The longer electricity travels, the more that is lost.

True, but the infrastructure is already there. We would have to foot the bill on the lines for wind. But, if in the long run it is an efficient replacement to natural gas/coal I'm fine with it. I just don't know that it is.

All I can say is this one man has a better idea than ANY of the politicians WE pay!

And he's spending more on the advertising than the government has done for any public education campaign.

You have to remember who this Pickens guy is and how he has operated in the past. While his plan is popular, given the current events associated with energy, I just don't think his heart is in the right place. I think he's simply trying to cash in on the next big thing in energy. If you know the country's wanting cleaner and cheaper energy harvested right here in America, and you have the money to do so, why wouldn't you invest in it? Your company makes a killing and you leave behind a legacy of being a heroic pioneer instead of a corporate raider.

Having said that, I'm all for the plan. Hell, at least he has a plan, and the money to make it happen. Helping vehicles convert to NG will boost the OKC economy, and using windfarms will help the rural parts of Oklahoma. All in all, America benefits from the jobs and keeping dollars in-country, while Oklahoma leads the way in producing the much-needed energy America needs.

__________________
...this shortest straw has been pulled for you