A Solution to Our Energy Problems?

I saw an ad for the Pickens Plan last night on TV. For those of you in the know, T. Boone Pickens has made a fortune in business, a good amount of it in the oil business. Well, now he's touting his plan to get America off its dependence on foreign oil. Basically, he's suggesting we use wind power and natural gas. You can read all the details here, but here are some of the facts that stood out to me. First of all -- the problem:

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand. The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

One part of the solution -- wind power:

What's the good news? The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.

Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.

An unexpected benefit from building wind power facilities:

Developing wind power is an investment in rural America.

To witness the economic promise of wind energy, look no further than Sweetwater, Texas.

Sweetwater was typical of many small towns in middle-America. With a shortage of good jobs, the youth of Sweetwater were leaving in search of greater opportunities. And the town's population dropped from 12,000 to under 10,000.

When a large wind power facility was built outside of town, Sweetwater experienced a revival. New economic opportunity brought the town back to life and the population has grown back up to 12,000.

In addition to creating new construction and maintenance jobs, thousands of Americans will be employed to manufacture the turbines and blades. These are high skill jobs that pay on a scale comparable to aerospace jobs.

Plus, wind turbines don't interfere with farming and grazing, so they don't threaten food production or existing local economies.

How we can run our cars:

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today. According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline. Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon.

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity. Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel — reducing our dependence on foreign oil by more than one-third.

Their plan:

Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. But it will take leadership.

On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office.

We're organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration.

I've said before that I'm interested in the potential of wind power, so this plan seems at least a start in the right direction to me. What do you think? I'm sure many of you know a good amount about this issue, so I'm very interested in hearing your take on this issue.

Comments

[Jake]

Even if it only cost $1.2 trillion to generate 20% of our country's energy output, the breakeven date at today's energy prices would be 19 years from now. Ouch. And that's assuming ZERO operating costs -- much in contrast to the hundreds of thousands of jobs that Pickens plans to create.

Plus it's expensive to retrofit the ENTIRE FLEET of passenger vehicles in the US to run on natural gas instead of oil.

This is a plan that does not make economic sense, and should be seen as a multi-hundred-billion-dollar military / national security expense.

[Mark]

19 years doesn't sound like a big deal when you look at the grand scheme of things...It's obvious that more and more emerging countries are going to be dependant on energy thereby increasing the demand, and if the supply of non-renewable sources for energy generation runs out, we need to find more efficient ways to generate power.

[Kevin]

Clearly, we need to reduce our consumption of energy as step one. The fact that we use 25% of the world's fuel is disturbing to me. But not nearly as disturbing as the amount of money that is leaving the country to pay for the oil.

Why not use wind power for some electricity and solar for the rest? I imagine that would greatly reduce the need for natural gas/oil used currently and allow that energy to be used to power transportation. Yes, it's a big investment, but I think it's worth it from a self-sufficiency and economic standpoint.

[Bill]

I agree that changes need to be made but the marketplace will dictate that. I've read that Solar power is getting better and better, even that the amount of energy collected by a solar panel is doubling every 2 years. They will get more efficient then will make financial sense. Hopefully wind will do the same.
As for ditching oil, I am sick of Obama touting throwing money at alternative technology as a plan. What do we do in the mean time, I say drill in the short term (ANWR/Offshore/Shale) until we have the new technology.

[Colin]

I don't think that the government is going to put 1 trillion dollars on the table and say: "build it". This is just a step in the direction we need to be heading.
Being from the Sweetwater/Abilene area, and putting up with that wind my whole life, I'd like to see it be used for something productive. The area outside of Abilene is on track to have one of the largest wind farms in the country.
If we don't get started somewhere, in 19 years we'll look back and wonder why we didn't just START something, anything.

[MInTheGap]

Isn't the main problem with wind power when there is no wind? According to what I've heard (and please correct me because I'm not an expert), but in order to have wind energy you have to have backup generators for when there is no wind and it's calm. Therefore wind energy is not as clean as we've been lead to believe.

Also, I do believe that the great plains may be the most windy area of the country, but it's also the location of most of the tornadoes. Man could we make lots of energy up until the windmills were uprooted and thrown through a small nearby town. And the money to put them back up?

It seems like is not all it's cracked up to be.

[Bobby]

It's a good start. If we can create pollution free electricity, then we can have pollution free electric cars for commuting back and forth to work. There would be no need for small cars and trucks to be Hybrids. The natural gas part of his plan is, I believe, for mass transit systems. America doesn't need to be independent from foreign oil, America needs to be independent of oil...period!

[rdub98]

I know this is a Finance Blog, but nobody seems to realize that we are KILLING this planet. Forget the money for a second, stop worrying about break even points, and consider that our children and grandchildren will have a real crap hole to live in unless we do something about our wastefulness, litter, and pollution. Some believe we have hit peak oil and unless someone discovers another inhabitable planet within a few hundred million miles, it will only get worse from here.

(Stepping off my soap box)

On a lighter note, I'm actually looking into installing solar panels on my roof. They are expensive, but I'm not really worried about the expense or the long term savings. I just think it would be neat to say that my house runs on solar energy.

Sorry for the NONPARTISAN rant.

[Bobby]

Also, what would it say about America and it's citizens if we could take lead in combating Global Warming?

[Chris]

Big full disclosure to Picken's plan: He has massive holdings in wind, natural gas, and water (that is pumped when drilling for natural gas) so his plan is obviously best for T.B him self. That said, he does make very very good points. In larger terms, he is putting his money in a non-oil future which he sees as wind and natural gas.

He is an oil man, and is saying world supply of oil has peaked. All the low hanging fruit has been picked. From now on, demand will outstrip supply and since America has such little oil reserves compared to our usage, Oil has a poor future in America.

But, we have the best potential for wind energy in the world. And lots of natural gas. And great potential for solar. What do those have in common? Electricity! Power generation is the only way out of this mess, and in wide terms that is what the Pickens plan is.

But, natural gas cars are a pipe dream.

[Hayden Tompkins]

Bill, I'm sick and tired that the marketplace-as-great-leveler people are the ones bailing out banks and subsidizing oil while they rake in profits. Oh, but the people who overextended themselves on mortgages need to feel the consequences of their actions.

If we throw subsidies and tax breaks at oil companies, why not the alt tech people too? I don't care either way, as long as it's consistent. I DO care, however, about how partisan and hypocritical this stuff can be.

[MrAtoZ]

Since this is a personal finance blog, I think the answer to the energy problem is diversification, just as one has to allocate one's assets across classes.
We need more muclear for electric generation, as well as wave, wind and solar. Atomic and solar thermal (as opposed to using cells for electric generation) are practical today, but most of the other technologies are still "green" in the sense that it will take time for them to mature.
And we definitely need to at least try to extract more oil and gas from our territories. They're all part of the solution.

[Cherryblossom]

I think it (moving to wind power) needs to be a long slow process. Mainly for economic reasons. The current electric generating capacity of the US is funded by wall street in the form of bonds and stocks. We can't completely replace all our current electric generating capacity without letting the current power plants run through their planned operating life cycles.

What I would like to see are individuals taking steps to move away from the power grid. Small wind turbines, solar panels, and geothermal plants built into each home. Why relly on the grid when you can make your own electricity. Stop HOA's from disallowing small wind turbines on houses. And bring back tax credits for energy saving features on homes and vehicles. Make the power companies give credit to individuals that can put energy back into the grid.

[WesleyTech.com]

We could all be driving electric cars by now, but the big oil industry and crooks stopped it from happening. Watch the film "Who Killed The Electric Car?".

[aaktx]

I think his plan calls for a massive infrastructure buildout which may not be economically feasible. How about a plan to transition to alternative sources of energy while working on securing domestic oil production and cleaning up our current sources(coal gasification and nukes)? Clearly visionary leadership and planning which may require public and private partnerships will be needed. I can't help but feel a little suspicious about Pickens motives.

[Geoff]

Using natural gas for transportation is unlikely since you can't easily convert your car to use it and there are few options out there for natural gas cars, and few (if any) in the pipeline.

Wind is a good idea, in addition to geothermal, solar, etc. I think we can get energy independence, or at least lower our dependence on foreign countries if companies and the government make the effort. After all, we won't run out of wind or sun energy anytime soon. If we don't, our economy could be left behind, and then everyone will be blaming the government for not doing something earlier.

As for more drilling as a short-term solution, it just isn't. It can take 10-15+ years from exploration to the first barrel. By that time, you are close to paying off (or halfway there) all of the capital investment for the wind turbines, and other energy sources. I don't see the point in wasting the time and the money to keep exploring oil, all it is is a band-aid on a much larger wound.

[Apex]

MrAtoZ is right on the money. Perfect answer, do it all and don't put all your eggs in any one basket especially if the basket is being sold by someone who already put all his eggs in that basket like Mr. T. Boone and now needs public support to get his golden goose to start laying eggs.

Right now the cleanest thing we have that we know works, know how to do, can do it very economically and can create tons of energy is nuclear. France supplies 85% of all of its energy with nuclear and they are about the most liberal country on the planet, so if France isn't afraid of nuclear why are we so paranoid about it. The American public has been scared by the long island accident and chernobyl. All the energy you could ever need in your entire lift would not create enough nuclear waste to fit in a pop can. All the waste created by all nuclear plants in the US for all of history (more than 50 years) would fill one football stadium 15 feet deep. And we know how to store this stuff in unpenetratable containers for 10,000 years.

Keep working towards the new stuff and expand the stuff that you know works right now.

In addition to buying into nuclear is going to kill us, too many Americans are buying into the paranoia that fossil fuels are going to kill us. We are not killing the planet. The air and water all all cleaner than at any time in the last 30 years. Al Gore aside, global warming is not even remotely a problem. This will become clear in time but its the current sky is falling hysteria that everyone is running from. We have these short and long term phobias which the media helps fuel all the time. We had West Nile, and SARS, and Shark attacks, and flu outbreak paranoia due to low flu vaccines, and bird flu pandemic, etc. Thats all just in the last 7 years or so. And how did all those turn out? Into big nothings. We had the y2k looming disaster which we worried about for years until it turned out to be nothing. Now we have the global warming disaster. The planet is a big complicated place people. The climate is affected by billions of things. Volcanos pump out more CO2 than we can produce in a lifetime. The idea that our activities of burning up a few old dinosaur bones is going to destroy the planet is irrational paranoia. Where did all the carbon come from that is now buried in the oil. It was in the ecosystem somewhere at one time.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070424-forest-fossils.html

They recently found some petrafied tropical trees a few hundred feet underground in illinois. They determined they were 300 million years old. They say the climate was drastically different back then such that tropical trees grew in illinois. A couple quotes from the national geographic article on it: "The fossils reveal a 300-million-year-old forest that bears little resemblance to most wooded areas today." The climate was ever wet, hot, and humid," said Scott D. Elrick, geologist with the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). "The modern-day equivalent would be some of the peat swamps of Indonesia."

What kind of radically different climate existed on planet earth 300 million years ago to create this? illinois is ever wet, hot, and humid. It resembles the modern day peat swamps of illinois? My God, what would the hysterics say if we were going to turn illinois into an indonesian peat swamp by our burning of fossil fuels.

The frustrating thing is there are the scientists right there, doing the geological research, reporting them in peer reviewed journals and getting public publishing to the masses in magazines like the national geographic and does anyone stop to say well, gee, if raising temps 2 degrees is going to "KILL THE PLANET" how did having illinois being year around hot wet and humid not kill it? Its just an interesting fact about the past that we segment off and pretend it sheds no light on the current impending disaster we are trying to prevent which will never materialize because we can see from the geological evidence that the climate has been radically different in the past without killing the planet. But some species died and others came into existence due to the climate changes. So. Who are we or you to say that the climate as we have it right now is what we should try to keep on this planet for all time because any slight deviation from that well, thats just going to create ecological chaos and the whole planet will end up like mars. Uh, excuse me, the geological record says thats nonsense.

The current global warming hysteria about raising the climate 2-3 degrees over the next 100 years is no where near getting you to tropical trees in illinois. Yet at one time it happened. With no help from humans and with no killing of the planet (i.e. were still here).

If you make decisions based solely on not killing the planet, you are making decisions to your own detriment for no rational reason. The planet is no where near dying now or anytime in any of our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's lifetimes. Or in 1000s of generations of their posterity for that matter.

Don't believe everything the media and those with an agenda spoon feed to you. Look at all the evidence and ask if the story being told all adds up. If its so incontrovertible, then there should not be anyone who can make any credible counter case. I just made one from a national geographic article. There are hundreds of others. And they are not hard to find.

[Trent D.]

Wind Power - great idea, and a key spoke in a wheel of multiple diverse energy sources.
Natural gas powered cars - Horrible idea.

As T. Boone says, Wind would cost a lot up front, and there would be maintenance costs, but it's a great idea for a low impact energy source. Even the strategic implications are great - think how difficult it would be for a hostile force to destroy a significant portion of our energy supply?

Natural gas vehicles, though, get MUCH worse gas mileage, and the infrastructure changes alone would cost an enormous amount. Not to mention how difficult the changeover would be - do filling stations have pumps for both? They do for diesel, but now we're adding a third fuel source they need to carry? Who is going to invest in natural gas pumping infrastructure when there are virtually no cars to use it? And who is going to buy a car they can't fill?

There are two great reasons for easing oil use that NO ONE can argue. 1) it will run out eventually, and 2) we're exceptionally dependent on it. Let's forget global warming for a moment - those first two reasons are reason enough alone to move away from oil.

For those who claim T. Boone is just in it for the money - yes, that's part of the reason. But why do we criticize Boone while ignoring Al Gore recommending "carbon credits", bought from companies which he holds stock in, or is on the board?

Natural gas isn't a solution for cars - gas-supplemented electrics and fuel cell vehicles are the answer there. But wind is an awesome option for energy generation. Let's do it!

[Chris]

Nuclear, while sort-of-safe, is not cheap form of power. It is heavily regulated because of the dangers, and it is heavily subsidized by governments. You have to build the massive plant, mine the fuel, process the fuel, convert the fuel, and then store the spent fuel forever.

Lets compare T.B's new wind project with a comparable nuke plant. His wind deal, worth $2 Billion will build 667 wind turbines in northern Texas and produce 1,000 Megawats of electricity. The Comanche Peak Steam Electric Nuclear plant in Texas produces about 1,150 Megatats of electricity and cost $11 Billion in 1993. Or about $16 Billion in todays dollars. And this is just the beginning of an extended four part project that will be able to produce 4,000 Megawatts by 2014 for a grand total of $11 Billion.

But once wind is going, the operating costs are almost zero, and there are no safety issues. It is going to be a huge market for electricity without government help, much less than can be said for nuclear. Not to say Nuclear doesn't have it's place, it does. But it is not our savior or even close to it.

And Apex, the problem with global warming isn't the temperature it self, it is the speed at which the temperature rises. A 2˚ rise in 50-100 Million years is one thing, a 2˚ rise in 100 is quite another. You might also say that good parts of the civilized world used to be underwater oceans 300 Million years ago, and I certainly don't think we could get used to that very easily! Also, the problem is pumping lots of heat trapping carbon vapor into the atmosphere very quickly, when it has been in a solid or liquid state forever. I don't think it is very complicated...

[Apex]

"For those who claim T. Boone is just in it for the money - yes, that's part of the reason. But why do we criticize Boone while ignoring Al Gore recommending "carbon credits", bought from companies which he holds stock in, or is on the board?"

For the record I criticize Al Gore for carbon credits. I consider wind to be a viable source of energy which may or may not be the best and most economical path to take and T. Boone claiming it is the best path creates a conflict of interest, that's all. It may be a great path but when someone has invest 100s of millions of dollars into it you don't just take his word for it. No one trusts oil companies due to conflicts of interest, they are demonized constantly (see the bogus comment about how they killed the electric car above).

Now as to Al Gore's carbon credits, thats just pure fraud. Paying someone to plant a tree in africa is going to stop global warming? Not only does it line his pockets but its rediculous non sense. If this truly worked then the global warming scare is actually easily solved, we all just pay some migrant worker to plant trees and we can burn all the dead dinosaur bones we want right? Carbon credits are the silliest response to any question about carbon footprint I have ever heard.

[benzta]

"98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations." Beware of selective statistics like these. Here are some hard numbers:

April '08: The U.S. imported about 9,366,000 barrels of petroleum per day. 1,952,000 of those came from Canada (our largest "foreign" supplier), and 1,259,000 came from Mexico (#3 supplier). This means that only 46% came from outside of North America.

Additionally, 18% of American-consumed natural gas comes from Canada and Mexico. How different would that statement have been if it said, "54% of the oil used in the United States is from North America, but 20% of our natural gas is purchased from foreign nations." Ok, sure, it's not as sexy, but it sure does show how he skewed the stats...

And as a side note, I actually spent a couple of days in Sweetwater, TX last month (if there has been an economic recovery there, it must have been REALLY bad before), and I filmed those wind towers. The truth is thus: half of those things were stationary. This is the problem with wind power-- it's not reliable. When you combust a fossil fuel, you know how much power you're going to get out of it. But you can hardly ever predict how hard the wind will blow tomorrow... If you build those things on a large scale, that would help mitigate some of those concerns, but still, there are risks. And does no one care about migratory birds? Those wind towers are like huge guillotine machines for them...

[Apex]

"A 2˚ rise in 50-100 Million years is one thing, a 2˚ rise in 100 is quite another."

I said nothing about 2 degrees in 50-100 million years, just that it was drastically warmer in the past. Changes can be quite swift. Ice ages began over the courses of 100s to 1000s of years, not millions.

Secondly I keep quoting the 2-3 degree number that the hysterics put out, but I think its all non sense. The earth will cool again before we get to 2100. There are many long and short cycles in the climate. We have been on a 30-40 year warming trend. The short term cycle may already be in the process of shifting to a short term cooling period. 100 years from now the climate will likely be very little different than it is right now, possibly cooler but highly unlikely to be 3 degrees warmer.

And even if it was. Why is a shorter time window for the warming so disasterous. So over the course of 100 years some people will be displaced. Big deal. Hurricanes, Earthquakes, fires, mudslides, polical chaos, wars, famine, drought, plague all do this all the time. But if climate changes the lives a 100 million people we have to have a panic attack like 2% of the world's population over a 100 year period has never been affected by some kind of displacement?

The most frustrating thing to me is 20-40 years from now when its apparent that this has all been hysterical nonsense, everyone who bought into it will just move on to the next disaster we need to prevent. I have seen it all before with all the disasters we have feared in the past. People never learn and tend to think we are in too much control of what goes on, on this planet. Thats how we come to the conclusion that its actually not very complicated. Some politican proposed it, a UN panel backed it, the media evangelized it and I believe it, that settles it. Sigh! Nothing can really be done but try to prevent all the damage that everyone wants to do until it is quite clear that we don't really affect the climate much at all.

There are plenty of reputable scientists who refute this stuff but it is vocationally dangerous to do so publicly right now even though more and more are. We are stuck with a brainwashed public until the gag order can be slowly lifted on the truth.

Its interesting that in Britain 60% of the population thinks man-made global warming is bunk fueled by the media and politicians. I guess they are not as brainwashed as us even though it tends to be a liberal agenda and they are more liberal than the US on average, yet they still do not believe the dog food they are being told to eat on this topic.

[Jim]

In general I think we need to develop and promote other forms of energy to gradually move away from foreign oil. Its in our best interest to promote development of wind, solar, clean coal, natural gas, domestic oil, nuclear and anything else we can think of that would produce energy here in the US rather than shipping billions of dollars to foreigners who hate us. We need to start the process now and any step away from oil is a good one IMHO.

I'm a fan of wind power and I'd love to see us continue to invest in it. Wind power is already economically viable and our installed wind power has been growing swiftly with >40% increase in 2007. Wind is now over 1% of US electric power.

20% wind by 2030 is very feasible. The 20 percent wind report info is at:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20p.aspx?page=Overview

@MinTheGap, no you do not need backup generators for the windmills. Wind power production is variable and an average amount over time and various locations. But its just one part of the total equation in our electricity production. See: http://www.awea.org/utility/pdf/Wind_and_Reliability_Factsheet.pdf

Jim

[Mark]

Someone above posed the question what do you do if you have wind power and there is no wind?

Why not have a hybrid model...where most of the power comes from wind, but on less windy days they go to their alternative choices.

[Jeff]

Great discusion. We must reduce our over dependence.

benzta-Banning Pass in So. Cal has hundreds of wind powered generators. We would fly over them often and I too noticed many not turning. Some are down for maint and some are not turning because the demand for electricity at that exact time did not require it. Electricity is produced on demand, it is not economically feasible to "stockpile" for use at a later time on that scale.

[Trent D.]

Benzta said: ***"...I filmed those wind towers. The truth is thus: half of those things were stationary. This is the problem with wind power-- it's not reliable."***

Yup - this is why I posted earlier that wind would just have to be part of a diversified solution. There has to be a backup, and you've got to overbuild the wind portion of the power grid in case the wind doesn't blow in ND or TX for awhile.

***"...but still, there are risks. And does no one care about migratory birds? Those wind towers are like huge guillotine machines for them."***

My understanding is that the large wind towers turn at a low enough RPM that they're not a serious threat to birds...at least no more than a well-cleaned plate glass window!

[JB]

"WE" don't need to do anything. Private companies need a level playing field to develop, market, and sell energy in whatever form they wish. When "WE" - our government - gets involved and tries to plan this technology or that, we end up in the mess we are in.

Subsidize this, don't subsidize that, tax such and such, mention this technology in the State of the Union, pass a bill to support abc, prohibit the building of p's, fund the building of q's.

We have quietly and systematically implemented some of the worst features of a Soviet-style planned economy and now the free market has it's hands so tied it is looking to our government to solve the problem. Anyone see the price of corn lately?

[Jim]

It is hard to say what technology will take care of our needs and give us 100% certainty of no problems. We need to be doing everything so that we are not held hostage by foreign countries. We need to drill, incorporate solar, use wind, add nuclear facilities, etc.

[Mike Hunt]

Making electicity from wind instead of Natural Gas is a great thing. That Natural Gas should be used for heating homes and businesses in the winter, that's where it's most efficiently used.

For cars, we need to start to ramp up a percentage of cars using electric power and batteries. Check out Tesla Motors, they have a sports car roadster that can go 0-60 mph in under 4 seconds, with a top speed of 125 mph and a range of 230 miles. Charging the batteries takes 3.5 hours and cost about $4 of electricity. Right now this car costs $100K and is only being bought up by celebs and VIP's. Get the battery technology with a lost cost manufacturer like Tata Motors (out of India) and you can have a cheap electric car fro about $6000 with even better economy. We can use these cars for our daily driver / regular commuting needs. Keep the gas car for road trips, very cold climates (batteries get weak in extreme cold), and off road use.

With the extra electricity generation we can use electricity for transport needs and reduce our consumption of foreign oil.

-Mike

[Noah]

A lot of countries that use wind power use excess energy to push water uphill. When the wind dies down, the water comes down and generates hydroelectric. Seems to work well enough for them. Obviously this is a huge investment, but as someone mentioned, that's all the better reason to get started now.

@Apex: You're out of your mind. Climate change is a fact, regardless of what the Earth looked like hundreds of millions of years ago. To cool things down from that point, ice ages or massive volcanic blasts occurred. Is that the remedy you're looking for?

"[O]ver the course of 100 years some people will be displaced. Big deal. Hurricanes, Earthquakes, fires, mudslides, polical chaos, wars, famine, drought, plague all do this all the time."

This is hilarious. What do you think global warming causes? It's not just about flooded shoreline, it creates drought and breeding grounds for fire, hurricanes, and disease.

For anyone who's doubting climate change, look at the polar and sub-arctic regions, like Alaska. The science is clear those areas get hit first, and sure enough, the glaciers are melting. The permafrost is melting. What natural trends are you talking about that melt -perma-frost?

There are, last time I looked, eight bills in congress dealing with climate change, including one sponsored by McCain. Everyone is so wrong and, but -you- see the truth? Time to face facts pal.

[Josh]

I am all for wind and solar power, but the article is misleading because it seems to assume that we use a lot of foreign oil for electricity production. This is not true. Less than 5% of the oil that is used in this country is for electricity production. The bulk of our electricity comes from coal, so increasing the amount of production from wind or solar will simply reduce the amount of coal that we burn.

I don't think that we will be switching to natural gas anytime soon to power our cars. The costs to implement the infrastructure changes would be way too high to justify it. There are some countries that do have cars that run on natural gas though. I know that my father-in-law has a car that runs on natural gas in Peru. He has to start the car using regular gas and then has a switch that converts the fuel over to natural gas once its running. Very interesting, but I don't think we will ever see it here.

[Apex]

"@Apex: You're out of your mind. Climate change is a fact,"

I guess we mutally think each other is out of their mind, so we agree on that.

"There are, last time I looked, eight bills in congress dealing with climate change, including one sponsored by McCain. Everyone is so wrong and, but -you- see the truth? Time to face facts pal. "

This is hillarious. 8 bills in congress make it a fact? There are more and more scientists coming out against it all the time.

Of course climate change is a fact. I never said it wasn't. Humans are not driving it and its no big deal. The kind of climat echange we are having now will have no serious impact on anyone's life.

Its all hysteria. By the time we know this beyond all doubt you will have moved on to the next disaster you want us to solve.

[Noah]

@Apex: Bills in congress don't appear without serious scientific background. Platitudes like "no big deal" and "will have no serious impact on anyone's life" are just silly and willfully ignorant. I can imagine the idea global warming is not man made and that you're right(even though I think it's highly, highly unlikely). But to me, not trying to treat it is just too much of a gamble, even if there is a chance it's pointless. You're so entrenched; can you put yourself in the other perspective for a minute?

Honestly it doesn't much matter our opinions one way or another. Driving hybrids, putting solar lights on houses is a drop in the ocean and would have no real effect on anything. The only way this problem gets arrested is legislation and ideally international treaty. I'm probably as much a contributor as any other household, and I have no plans to go to a particularly eco lifestyle. But sooner or later one will be forced on us, and that's probably a good thing.

[Apex]

you are quite correct that each of us individually has no impact.

So here is my run down on global warming. I have not arrived at this conclusion due to ideological rigidness without both researching and considering the arguments.

So to take the path of the global warming solvers you have to buy 4 things.

1. The earth is warming -- I buy this.
2. Humans are the primary driver -- I doubt this. I concede its possible but think it quite unlikely that we are the primary cause. Solar patterns and other more powerful forces seem to coincide much better with the climate change patterns than CO2 levels. For instance CO2 has been on a constant increase since the industrial revolution, yet we had warming in the early 20th century, 30 years of steady cooling in the mid 20th century, and now 30 years of warming in the late 20th century. The models don't seem to be able to account for this nearly as well as solar activity cycles which correlate much better.
3. You have to believe that the results of this warming if it were to continue to be driven by the rising CO2 will be quite disasterous. -- I see no reason why this is true. In fact many statistical analysis show that many more people die from cold than heat and that the result of a 2-3 degree rise would be a net decrease in death. In fact everytime temperatures have risen in the last 1000 years prosperity has increased and the darkest times for surviving on this planet have been when it cooled not when it warmed.
4. You have to believe that we can take actions to halt and reverse these effects to prevent the catastrophy from occuring. So what are people now proposing. They are proposing treaties to slow our growth in C02 output and some are proposing freezing or slightly decreasing it. Calls for things like 80% reductions are really just numbers that are made up. No one believes there is any reasonable path to get to that anytime soon. And besides there is the fact that China and India (only half the worlds population) don't seem to care about the issue at all and will soon pass us like we are standing still in terms of CO2 emitters. Is someone going to twist their arm and make them stop burning fossil fuel? I have seen statistical analysis of the most agreesive legislative and treaty proposals currently being considered that say in the best case scenario the most aggressive would shave .07% of the 2-3% increase in temperature by 2100.

Everyone has believed we cause it, its a disaster, and we can fix it. But when you look at it, none of that adds up or makes any sense to me. It makes us feel good because we are doing something. But doing something is pointless if that something really doesn't have any impact in the end. And the impact on the economy for all of this which I believe produces no measurable benefit to solve a problem which I believe posses no reasonable risk. Thats why I am so opposed to the global warming agenda. If they just want to ask everyone to use less and conserve thats great. I am all for that. I try to do that when its reasonable to do so. I really loath wastefulness and think we are far too wasteful as a society. We should focus more on conservation. But I am not for a grand save the planet plan. I don't think the planet needs saving and if it did, I am afraid we would be quite incapable of meeting that challenge if we really on congress to lead us.

[Chris]

I know you believe so strongly that you are right that you could care less what I say, but for the record...

Humans are producing massive levels of CO2 by burning concentrated carbon fuels and exhausting it into a very thin atmosphere. C02 is a gas that reflects back heat emitted from the surface (long wave radiation) yet lets in sunlight (short wave radiation) and with higher concentration comes higher temperatures in the atmosphere as the radiation gets bounced around for longer before escaping. Venus is the classic example in our solar system, with a very heavy atmosphere of CO2 that keeps the surface the virtually the same hot temperature (860˚F at the equator) day and night. Methane, H20, and Ozone do the same things on earth and with out it we would be in real trouble, and frozen solid.

But our atmosphere is only about 1% water vapor, and 0.038% CO2. Just that amount of gas keeps us warm, and without it we would be an ice ball. Like being out in winter with no jacket. So if we increase that miniscule amount of CO2 in our atmosphere, global temperature will respond accordingly.

I would also agree that "killing the planet" might be silly, as the planet is going to "live on" and respond to whatever happens to it. But how it responds has the potential to be devastating to where we live, and where we grow our food.

[Apex]

Chris,

I understand the dynamics of green house gases. I don't know the specific numbers that you quoted but this site seems to agree with your assessment of CO2 levels.

It however reaches different conclusions on the global warming effects of the current situation.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

There are countless other counter historical analysis available.

Your argument is that CO2 warms the earth. There is more CO2 now than in the recent past. Thus we will be warmer now. Up until now I am with you. But the leap is then made to this current level is unacceptible and leads to catastrophe. But why? as you yourself said, CO2 is a much smaller component of the green house gases in the atmosphere. So if you take a component that is very small and make it a bit bigger, even double it (we haven't doubled it yet) then its now just slightly less small but still very small compared to the other green house gases. Without a working model that proves otherwise, why is this such a big deal and why would we assume its affects on climate would be drastic.

Remember that its only the last 30 years that temps have been rising with this CO2. The 30 before that they were falling. Maybe something else, something bigger, something more powerful and important is a far more important driver than the changes in the percent of this minor portion of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

I am not sure why so many who are believers assume that I am just a dumb blok who doesn't understand any of the science behind the arguments. I understand the science and the arguments. And they don't tell a scary story to me. They tell a boring story of minor changes that are not sufficient to be disruptive. Other events and forces maybe sufficiently significent enough to be disruptive, but CO2 doesn't appear to be one of them.

[Noah]

Even though we disagree, I appreciate your responses to this discussion.