Talk:Pickens Plan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-Interested Critics?

Would it be possible for someone to look into finding critics who are not funded by oil interests? There are plenty of libertarian-leaning academics out there, for example, who would oppose the kind of subsidies it would take to carry out the Pickens Plan. The way the article is written now, it just appears that people *only* oppose it, because they're funded by Big Oil, and I highly, highly doubt that to be the case. Inquisitorgeneralis (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, I don't see how the listing of those corporations funding of the Cato Institute is relevant, because according to the Cato Institute's Wikipedia page only 2% of its 2008 income came from corporations. Unless someone was a good reason why not, I think it should be removed. Spoudaiogeloion (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the information related to the corporate funding of the Cato Institute; because of its verifiability (I believe the information was not supported by footnote, because the link was bad and a search of that website didn't come up with any such information; the information in question implied that the Cato Institute received large amounts of its funding from corporations, which is contradictory to Cato Institute Wikipedia page) and I think that the inclusion of this information may have effected the NPOV of the article, by creating undue weight and bias against the Cato Institutes criticism of the plan. I changed the description of the Cato Institute to "a libertarian think tank", giving people links to three articles that they can read if they want learn more about the Cato Institute and any bias it might have.Spoudaiogeloion (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Corporate profiteer/insider/raider vs. Big Oil. Which side do I take? hehe. This is like Hitler vs. Himler, which side do I take, i'm sure a leftist knows which side to take? When leftist propaganda goes bad, T. Boone Pickens is damaged goods by simply being a Capitalist, so this attempt to tarnish any criticism as being funded by Big Oil is laughable.

Does each sentence involving the wonderful "T. Boone Pickens Plan" start with "Capitalist Pig"? For example: "Capitalist Pig T. Boone Pickens has a plan to take America off foreign oil." No it doesn't, and neither does every criticism have to start with "Funded by big Oil."98.165.6.225 (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Merger proposal

Is there any real need to have this separate from the T. Boone Pickens, Jr. article, where it's already covered? --Blowdart | ^talk 17:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, the Pickens Plan is a noteworthy topic which deserves its own article. The article about Mr. Pickens is a biography about the individual. The Pickens Plan an economic proposal which is a subject of discussion and media attention separate (although directly funded) from Mr. Pickens. This is a public policy initiative which deserves its own article. It is me i think (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But right now it's a single paragraph and some references; nothing more, and that's already in his main article. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

no worries I am working to add more material. It is me i think (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, because right now it's just a copy of that paragraph; it doesn't warrant it's own article. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion... I think this separate article is warranted and nine refs attest to its notability... Johnfos (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not merge. Serves its own article.Beagel (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not merge. I agree, do not merge. This 'plan' could probably be bigger than him. And

his ad campaign focuses on the plan itself and not on him as an individual.Skeeter451 (talk)

• Not merge. This energy plan has established notability and deserves its own article. Steevo714 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not merge I also agree, we should not merge the two articles. It is me i think (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is No on the merger.Kgrr (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)  Done

Pickens business interest in wind

Should this information be added:

Pickens "plans to build a 4,000 megawatt wind farm in Texas at a cost of up to $12 billion, said he didn't hatch the Pickens Plan for profit. 'I've got enough money,' he said. 'I don't need to make any more money — but I don't go into things to lose money.' This is from the USA Today story which is referenced in the Pickens Plan article. It is me i think (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If the material in your article is relevant to one of the sections in the article and the material has not been covered yet, please feel free to add the section that it fits in.Kgrr (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we add information on fosil fuels as counterargument? Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

lowering our dependence on foreign oil

according to your article then it would be a effficient way to have all goverment vechiels to be at least mutli fuel starting in 2009 fiscal year since these vechiels are already availble.

robert neubeck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.152.142 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert, Wikipedia does not allow original research. However, if you have found for example an article that recommends that government vehicles should be gasoline/CNG, then by all means feel free to add it to the "Making the transition" section.Kgrr (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally private?

If it's private, like the article says, then what is the purpose of the commercials? He wants something. What is it? Richard Blatant (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone figure out what he wants from us yet? This would be good for the article. Richard Blatant (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it that he wants Eminent Domain to be used to seize the land from private owners, instead of having to buy the land with private money? Richard Blatant (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

His website says "We're organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration," so clearly he wants something from the government. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing reports saying that he wants government subsidies, and it looks like he wants the government to put in protectionist measures by putting a forced limit on oil imports in order to raise the price of oil to make buying power from him more attractive. Richard Blatant (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One could always try Occam's Razor - maybe Pickens' motivations are as simple as he says they are. Pickens says he wants to reduce America's addiction to foreign oil. Pickens invites critics of his plan to explain their plan for reducing foreign oil:

• "There are some critics, but they don't specify what they think is wrong with it. They can't find anything wrong with it. They just don't want to do it. I say the same thing to anybody — "What's your plan? If you've got a plan that's better than mine, I'll join up with you." But if you don't have a plan, and you don't like my plan, then you must like foreign oil."

So, do you have a better plan for reducing foreign oil, or do you like foreign oil? Of course Pickens wants to make money. Energy is an enormous market (something like $6 trillion annually) - somebody is going to make money off it. It's either going to be people like Pickens, or the Saudis if you prefer. --Teratornis (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens explains that there is plenty of support for wind power in the Great Plains from ranchers and farmers who appreciate the lease payments for hosting wind turbines on their land. The problem is moving the wind-generated electricity up to thousands of miles from the Great Plains to population centers (e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Denver, Phoenix, etc.) where the electricity customers are. That will require construction of new high voltage direct current transmission lines. Building these lines requires approval from hundreds of landowners, government agencies, etc., along the routes. A private citizen like Pickens lacks the clout to cut through all the associated red tape. Government action is necessary, just as it was for building railroads, pipelines, superhighways, and such rural electrification as we already have. The U.S. Government does not act except in response to some sort of political pressure. Pickens is trying to rally every American who dislikes foreign oil to pressure the U.S. Government to expedite the construction of these transmission lines. Pickens also wants government action to support wider use of compressed natural gas for powering motor vehicles. Pickens explains all this repeatedly in his many interviews, lectures, and on his Web site. Even if Pickens has some hidden ulterior motive, he still has to reduce foreign oil to achieve it. Do you like the ulterior motives of OPEC better? OPEC has engaged in oil price manipulation over the years with one primary goal in mind: to maximize the revenue it can extract from oil importing nations. For example, as the so-called "swing producer", Saudi Arabia has routinely increased and decreased oil production in the past to "stabilize" the market, and to undermine attempts by the United States and other nations to attain energy independence. If you think Pickens is setting himself up to get even richer, you are free to invest all the money you have in his hedge fund (it's considerably down in 2008, so now might be a good time to buy in). --Teratornis (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Pickens focuses on exploiting the enormous wind resource in the Great Plains, which necessitates building these long transmission lines. The U.S. also has large wind resources in the Great Lakes and along the Atlantic coast which are much closer to population centers and existing transmission lines. See:

• Bradley, David (2004-02-06). "A Great Potential: The Great Lakes as a Regional Renewable Energy Source" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-04.
• Belson, Ken (2008-10-03). "New Jersey Grants Rights to Build a Wind Farm About 20 Miles Offshore". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-04.

This is not an argument against developing the wind power potential of the Great Plains, but to point out additional wind power developments that were already gaining momentum, and have probably only benefited from Pickens' cheerleading for wind. If Pickens spends $58 million on a public relations campaign that helps to clear the way for up to trillions of dollars of wind power investment by other companies, he is helping along an industry of which he owns only a small percentage. --Teratornis (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

With the new article structure, please add the additional reference material to round out the sections "Power generation and transmission lines", "Pickens' motive" and "Support campaigns".Kgrr (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the form of the criticisms in this article

The criticisms on this article take the form: A said "X, Y, and Z". What's wrong with this? This is a way to avoid subjecting X, Y, and Z to being challenged for verifiability (WP:V) because they are mentioned as something someone said. Verifiability is the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, and this format cheats it.

These criticisms need to be reworded to simply state the criticism without the somebody said part. Then if anyone sincerely doubts a statement they can mark it "citation needed". If, after a time, no one provides a reliable source (WP:Source), the statement should be deleted as unverified. Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out the article structure now and see how the criticisms fit in better.Kgrr (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've done a lot of cleaning up in this article. We should be wary of WP:UNDUE when adding more and more criticism. No doubt, plenty of people are critical of this plan for various reasons, but we don't need to list them all. Readers only need to know that there are those who question the plan and that we're showing them some of the major ones. I also formatted all refs per the MOS. Hopefully we can expand this article over time, there should be quite a bit of info out there. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not see things as being two-sided, but multi-faceted. If there are major opinions that are not represented under the issues that have been presented, by all means add the opinions to the article. You will find adding more opinions makes the article POV free, richer and more interesting to read.Kgrr (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Positive Response?

Is there positive response for the Pickens Plan that could be included? With high gasoline prices and sky-is-falling global warming surely there are valid positive opinions? James4v8 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Critical Response" != "Criticism" -- 64.149.42.46 (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I object. You are better off having one section that reflects a balanced view of public opinion. Let the reader make up their own mind after they weigh in on the issues.Kgrr (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Neutrality

Everything I read shows that the majority of Americans have a favorable viewpoint of this plan, yet the article looks like the majority of people hate it. While the facts may be correct in the article, there is given undue weight to the criticism, making it look like the plan is unpopular when the opposite is true. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that best way keep neutrality would be to add to the Endorsements section. Items in the Criticism section should be included or removed based on if they are noteworthy, repetitive, or unnecessary, not because the article contains limited examples of noteworthy positive criticism. I do think that paragraph about the Cato Institution needs to be cleaned up, I think it doesn't accurately represent their position in a concise way. I also question if the listing of those corporations funding of the Cato Institute is relevant, as it makes up a small percentage of the institutes funding.Spoudaiogeloion (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So far, the criticism section has only gotten larger, which isn't balancing the article, and is instead making it more misleading. Also, we need to be careful quoting Intelligent Community as they are not a 3rd party, they have their own plan, so they are subjective, not objective, about the plan. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have radically trimmed the critical response, without changing the actual jist of the content. First, there is no reason to have the level of detail. That is what the citations are for. Second, it doesn't help to have critical responses from organizations that have a competing plan, when they are the only citation provided. Of course they will disagree, they are pushing their own plan, so you can't self reference it. (fails wp:rs, not 3rd party). We need to have the criticism here and listed, but overexplaining it isn't adding context, just confusion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those changes.Spoudaiogeloion (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I just found this article and I completely agree with you. That criticism section was way too big before and dominated the article. And that Intelligent Community thing isn't a reliable source and not encyclopedic, I think. Schweingesicht (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have a sockpuppet, previously banned, that keeps trying to add that other section back. I will look around and see if I can find some other endorsements to try to make the article reflect popular opinion a bit more, so the tag can go. Any help would be appreciated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Additional resources

• Washington Post article
• The Hill article
• Financial Times article
• Politico article
• CNN article

Please sign your posts on talk pages. You could make these references more useful by formatting them with {{Cite web}} templates. For example:

• Rooney, Ben (2008-07-22). "Pickens urges action on energy crisis". CNN. Retrieved 2008-10-04.

See WP:CITE, WP:FOOT, and WP:CITET. Using citation templates is important for an article to satisfy the featured article criteria. Pickens has received heavy press coverage, but most of it is redundant. See WP:EL. --Teratornis (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read these articles and if they say anything new, please feel free to add new viewpoints to an issue, or add a whole issue with supporting arguments on both sides to the article. But let's not create a link farm.Kgrr (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I thought we already worked this out, and decided to keep the article balanced, but it appears a new editor wants to stack the article with negatives. Until there is balance, we must keep the NEUTRAL tag on the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent *all* significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. What data do you, Pharmboy, have to say that since for Pickens Plan is the majority opinion and that there is no room to show the critical responses. The opinion of a top scientist within the DOE is a significant opinion next to T. Boone Pickens' massive advertising campaign.Kgrr (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The given citations, which ARE from reliable sources, demonstrate this. Adding uncited "facts" from blogs doesn't change that. Until you have a proper source and put it in the right context, you shouldn't stack negative data. I'm not a particular fan of the plan, just of balance. The way that you have added it unbalances the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Do yourself a real big favor. Please re-read Wikipedia's article on NPOV. I don't think you get it yet.Kgrr (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Insulting someone doesn't reinforce your argument. We have already hashed this out previously, look above. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not insult anyone. If asking anyone to re-read a section of the Wikipedia is insulting to you, then perhaps you should grow a little thicker skin. NPOV is not about representing what anyone thinks the "majority" viewpoint is. NPOV is about achieving a balance through representing all of the major viewpoints. It becomes biased when the article cuts out viewpoints simply because some editor thinks there are too many opposing statements. Unbiased writing takes a fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. This article leans very much towards the "pro" Pickens Plan side and very little space has been give to two points critical of the Pickens plan so far.Kgrr (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Every Wikipedia editor should read WP:CIVIL. When discussing some section of the article, please link to it, so other editors can easily see what you are discussing. I'm guessing this is about the Pickens Plan/Archive 1#Peak gas section. I was somewhat taken aback by this claim:

• He sees the future of transportation coming from electric vehicles and sees the dwindling natural gas supplies as too precious to be squandered on electricity generation or transportation: “Natural gas, as a space-heating fuel, has almost no alternatives.”

How can a qualified scientist see space heating as a more "precious" application than transportation? The definition of "precious" when it comes to an energy source refers to the difficulty of substituting other forms of energy for it. There are lots of ways to provide space heat: solar thermal; passive solar; cogeneration power plants; furnaces fired by natural gas, heating oil, wood, biogas, fuel pellets made of lumber waste or energy crops, or even coal in the worst case; heat pumps, and geothermal heat pumps. The last technology in particular is interesting, as geothermal heat pumps are one of the most efficient ways to turn electricity into space heating. Geothermal heat pumps could enable renewable electricity from wind power and other sources to free up a lot more natural gas than the U.S. currently uses for electric power generation. Winds are generally stronger during winter than in the summer in the United States. Switching from natural gas to geothermal heat pumps would increase the wintertime electricity demand, when electricity demand is lower at present, providing a market for the excess wind power. Geothermal heat pumps reduce the electricity requirements for air conditioning in the summer, so they would reduce electricity demand when wind power is lowest and demand is currently highest (this would also address one of the main criticisms of wind power, that it does not match well with the current seasonal variation in electricity demand). Thus I am somewhat surprised that the Pickens Plan doesn't mention geothermal heat pumps. In contrast to space heating, which can come from many well-established technologies, transportation in the U.S. depends almost entirely on liquid fuels from petroleum. Transportation is far more critical to the economy than space heating, since without transportation the economy stops, whereas people can get by with colder buildings by putting on more clothes if they have to. Since natural gas can power transportation, and is perhaps the only domestic energy source in the U.S. which can do that and scale quickly, that makes it too "precious" to use for space heating. Using natural gas for anything is, of course, unsustainable, so space heating will have to come from something else sooner or later. It might as well be sooner because alternative technologies already exist and are easier to implement from off the shelf, compared to rebuilding transportation to run on something other than liquid fuels from petroleum. However, I can't mention geothermal heat pumps in the Pickens Plan/Archive 1 article, because that would probably constitute original research if they aren't part of the plan or reliably-sourced commentary about the plan. I'll look around for reliable sources that discuss geothermal heat pumps to allow renewable electricity to supply space heating efficiently. I'm sure someone must have thought of this, as the idea is so obvious. --Teratornis (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)  Done

Criticism

I would request we do two things to the subtopics in the Criticism section. 1. There really should be at least two examples to have a subtopic (I didn't create any singles up above because it looks too much like you are trying to add extra weight with a single example). 2. Pick more neutral subtopic structure. The endorsements are broken up by the TYPE of people making the claim, not by the type of claim. Too easy to editorialize or for it to be OR. I think subgrouping them IS the way to go, but perhaps by the type of group/person making the claim, or in a more general and neutral way. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I went ahead and made the changes, which may need some slight altering. This would allow removing the neutral tag if we keep in more or less in this type of fashion. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• I do not understand. It really does appear like Kgrr is trying to push a point of view. I am trying to simply keep the article balanced, as the jury is still out, but there is NOT a majority of people against the plan. Hell, I am not a fan, but I know NPOV when I see it. Your intentions may be good, but your execution is skewing the aritcle to be Anti-Pickens Plan. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not pushing a point of view, I am organizing the criticisms against the Pickens Plan. How many people are for or against the plan has nothing to do with what major critical points there are. Please understand how NPOV works. All major points of view should be represented. The article as you are writing it without allowing the various views is unbalanced.Kgrr (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand how NPOV works, and it isn't a sigular thing. The content and cites should speak for themselves. Also, having one subtopic for each single quote is WAY overkill, and yes, gives undue weight to the argument. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowing me to even fill-in the separate points of view with other references. I completely disagree. It does not give any undue weight to that opposing view. The problem is that you are clearly pushing a pro Pickens Plan POV with the article. The whole article has undue weight and reads just like Pickens' ads.Kgrr (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the whole history of this article, which has been up and down, when you can. Again, I really don't like his plan (the wind power, ok, the rest, no). I don't have an agenda to push his plan. Take a look at the edits I made to the Criticisms: They didn't take a single one away. They just organized them in a similar fashion as the Endorsements. That is all. I am not sure how you read otherwise. Look at the history to verify, please. I have already seen enough arguments from people pushing one side or another in this article, and you just showed up today. I am trying to take your actions is as good of faith as I can, but you are telling me I am pushing an agenda and my history in this article shows I am not, including my edits today. I can get nitpicky about which edits, etc. but I shouldn't need to. Either we maintain a consistant way of presenting both sides of this plan, or it is not neutral. If you would objectively look at every single edit I have made today, you would see it is only deleting sections that were cited by a blog (then allowing it back in once you made a case and requested time to cite, AND I had to fix a botched cite that looked it was cited when it wasnt'....), plus I added more positives to equal out the debate, and try to give both of them equal say, in about the same space. I could have swamped the Endorsement section but my goals was simply to offer parity. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I did not just show up today. I have been on the sidelines for a long time. In fact I have been working with many of the energy related articles for several years now. The problem I have is when you group people by think tanks, environmentalists, you lose the viewpoints because those groups do *not* have a unified position. I also disagree with your Endorsements section in the same way. It hides the issues. Not all environmentalist are for the plan, not all think tanks, not all industry insiders, etc. I really don't want an endorsements and criticism section. The best way to go about it is to talk about each of the issues and balance the issues with the various points of view. Note that part of the article is already getting structured that way. Effects on the environment, Water transport through the wind corridor, Peak gas,... These are great issues. Balance them by presenting both sides. Kgrr (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• At this stage, I think sectioning them by pro and con is useful. Not required, but helpful because most people know very little about the plan (including both those for and against it...). I understand your point about the Pro grouping, and how it might be confusing. I would hope how you might see how subtitling individual entries may be reinforcing them too strongly as well. IMO, we may do well to source out a few more of each, and keep open minded to now to better represent both sides. I think it IS helpful to clearly state it is controversial and that there are competing ideas other than this plan. The dust hasn't settled on this plan yet. I see you have written much on Peak oil/gas, I have a little experience with energy as well, although I write very little about it on Wikipedia, instead choosing to monitor those articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK ... I've worked through the whole article this afternoon. What I have done is addressed the major issues, each in a section of their own. Each section has balancing statements on each side - pro and con. I have also eliminated the criticisms section, because you don't need it. I think it reads much more balanced this way. Now, do you really need the endorsements section? It's rather POV don't you think? Kgrr (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the bite marks, but understand that at first, I only saw the "criticism" section get much bigger (again), by someone who has never contributed to this particular article, with no discussion of a bigger plan. And it's an election year, so every wannabe party wonk is flooding controversial articles anyway. This is more balanced and getting better written. I made a couple of small changes, nothing major (see hidden comment in Wind Power). There was a poll I added weeks ago that showed most american's like the plan, that needs to get back in since it is the american public's opinion. If there is a more recent poll or better poll, that would be fine instead. The endorsement sections can likely be trimmed down and subtitles removed to only show the most significant endorsements, or moved in the same balanced manner. Or moved into a "controversy" section that lists 2 or 3 each examples of pro and con. After the plan is no longer "new", I would expect see that section disappear, as endorsements tend to be a "pre" factor. I removed Neutral tag as it appears to no longer apply. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • First of all, let me thank you for letting me make all the edits and seeing where it goes. I understand fully that you did not know my intentions when I stepped in today. Thanks for letting me step in and help.
      • I took your hint and changed the name of that section.
      • I definitely thing the article is much more balanced and the issues are clear for anyone reading the article. The article is open in such a way that more issues can be added and more points of view can be added for any of the issues. You will see that any well written article basically presents the issues and lets the different viewpoints on those issues be brought out. The reader can make up his mind as to which side(s) of the issues they go with.
      • Let the reader find the pros and cons for himself in each of the issues. There are not only two sides to each argument. I will show you how this structure can support much more than just a two-sided argument. You can have alternate views that are not just pro and con.
      • I agree with you that the NPOV issue is closed. I would also propose that you avoid a criticism section because it brings imbalance to the article. In effect, the criticism section creates a "free speech" zone away from where the topic is presented. Without it, all sides can be heard on all the issues.
      • I think the endorsements are a bit POV towards Picken's plan. I would like to discuss this with you below: Kgrr (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done

Next

I understand dropping the endorsements section. Those two sections were here when I started monitoring, and my goals was to try to keep them balanced. I DO think the two of the three subsections may be worthwhile if changed and broken out. Perhaps each could show both points of view within the bounds of responses from environmentalists and politicians (insiders, yes or no). The plan touches both of these groups stongest, and these seem to be the two strongest points of controversy. Showing both sides from the POV of each of these groups would be helpful *if* it was restricted to one or two strong arguments/points from each side. Again, I'm not stuck on it, but I think developing these two sections would add some worthwhile depth if quality citations are used. Another option would be to lump several points of view into a section 'controversy', showing how no one demographic agrees on it. That could include the recent pole showing the public opinion of it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here are the two poll links that someone deleted (not sure how I missed that). There are probably others as well. I think you have to put public opinion in the article somewhere. PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.sacredheart.edu/pages/24686_national_poll_americans_say_pickens_energy_plan_can_work.cfm
  • http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/10170 (not sure who added this one, was broke this morning)

Anytime you set up two sections - one versus the other or a section whose title is clearly for or against like "endorsements" or "criticisms" you set yourself up for an NPOV battle. You are really better off identifying the key issues and balancing all sides of the argument within those sections. So how do we fix this? I propose you can have public opinion section instead of what is now "endorsements". Now go and find some public opinions that balance the overall take on Pickens' Plan. Polls inject some bias if not balanced but do change over time. They can be included in this section. Perhaps you can work on this section and make it work in an NPOV way.Kgrr (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Article?

Let's stabilize the article and apply for GA status.

We need to start with compiling a to do list to meet these criteria. I will add a few to get the list started:

• 1 - Well Written.
  • a) We need a good copy edit by someone that really knows grammar, etc.
• 2 - Verifiable
  • a) We need to clean up all {{fact}}< tags.
  • b) We need to clean up the references to ensure the article can be found if the link is broken. I would like to see all inline references removed.
• 3 - Broad in coverage
• 4 - Neutral
  • a) The current structure should allow more diverse opinions in the article. If there is something missing - either an issue or a viewpoint in an issue, by all means add it.
• 5 - Stable
  • a) Let's get the edit wars and content disputes under control.
• 6 - Illustrated.
  • a) Do we need some photos to add some illustrations to the article? Can someone find a license-free picture of a wind turbine? I can take a picture of a Seattle Bus that is CNG powered. Does someone know where there is a CNG Honda Civic?

Kgrr (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I applaud any attempt to improve Wikipedia articles. Getting this article to good article status requires overcoming at least the following two problems:

• The subject matter for this article might change substantially, depending on support or opposition to the plan, the emergence of new arguments for or against the plan, the outcome of the United States presidential election, 2008, etc. For example, since the Pickens announced and promoted his plan in the press arena, most of the early responses to the plan were also in the press, in the form of sound bytes rather than detailed analysis. The energy market is so complex that a Blind men and an elephant problem can result, where various commentators object to various aspects of the plan in isolation, and there isn't always a reliably-sourced response to particular objections (even when such responses may be obvious). That is, first the plan appears, then some people object to the plan, but then it may take some time before responses to the objections appear which are independent of the plan's source (Mr. Pickens). Objections to the plan by definition will be independent of the plan's source, and so can easily give rise to undue weight, as independent sources in support of the plan may be slower in coming.
• Publicity surrounding the Pickens Plan may attract relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editors whose edits are unlikely to adhere to good article standards. For example, only a small fraction of Wikipedia editors seem to have mastered the arcane procedures for making footnotes and using citation templates. Thus the article will need continuous cleanup by editors who know how to make proper footnotes. That's true for any Wikipedia article, but may be especially true for an article whose subject matter may change substantially as real-world events play out.
• Wind turbine images: at least that part is straightforward. We can search Wikimedia Commons with the Mayflower search tool for:
  • wind turbine
  • wind farm

Both searches yield multiple results. --Teratornis (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I might add that one commentary about the plan which I have not yet seen is that it's too conservative. Now that Pickens has made more people aware that compressed natural gas is a perfectly usable transportation fuel, we might look at ways to save even more natural gas than Pickens proposes. For example, geothermal heat pumps and improvements to building insulation could reduce the amount of natural gas that goes to central heating, perhaps by even more than the 22% of U.S. consumption that goes to power generation. Drastically reducing natural gas consumption in other applications where alternative energy sources or efficiency improvements can substitute for it would stretch out the finite U.S. natural gas supplies, allowing a greater reduction in oil imports and more time to build sustainable (fossil-fuel-free) transportation. Another curious omission of the Pickens Plan is that it seems to make no mention of telecommuting. Since telecommuting directly replaces petroleum with electricity, aggressively expanding telecommuting to all workers who can use it would also help reduce oil imports. To his credit, Pickens says he is for anything that reduces foreign oil, so his lack of mention of an option would not mean he opposes it. Obviously, Pickens emphasizes the technologies he is personally familiar with. --Teratornis (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Teratornis,

1 The subject matter will change to a certain extent. But I think that will happen. We'll just allow for it.

2 I can clean-up footnotes. I will start working on that next.

3 I found some fun photos and added them.

4 You make some good points, but we are limited by not being able to do original research.

Thanks Kgrr (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to item 4, yes we can only mention what has been published, but when a suggestion seems pretty obvious, it's probably only a matter of time before it appears in a reliable source. Thus I will look out for suggestions to advance the Pickens Plan through other strategies to save natural gas for transportation use. I think Amory Lovins had independently suggested this a long time ago, not in connection with the Picken Plan, of course, because Pickens only announced his plan recently. One of the early objections to the Pickens Plan is that it will be hard to move natural gas out of power generation with wind power, because backup power is necessary when the wind stops blowing, and the most convenient backup power in the central U.S. is from natural gas. Thus the wind power may end up saving as much coal as natural gas, which would be good for the carbon footprint, but not as helpful to reduce imported oil. One response to that objection is to point to the other strategies for saving natural gas, such as using wind-generated electricity to heat buildings with geothermal heat pumps, freeing the natural gas they currently burn for heat. Thus I expect that if someone wants to defend the plan in an interview, they will offer these sorts of obvious suggestions that we already know about, and then we can add them to the article because the obvious will no longer be "original." --Teratornis (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with strategies to save the natural gas. The other problem is that business folks often put value on sunken costs. They may be extremely reluctant to dismantle the already existing gas turbine plants because they have already been bought and paid for. The real answer instead of using natural gas, a very useful fossil fuel, is to use electricity from the grid directly if possible. Electric motors are far more efficient because they don't have the same limits that internal combustion engines have - they are all carnot cycle heat engines and cannot be more efficient than 20-30%. Spain by the way has recently set a world record of running their country on 40.8% wind power.

I have the same problem with getting Peak gas into this article. The one tie I did find is a blog. And the one scientist to come forward with the obvious tie that peak gas follows peak oil is probably afraid of losing his job. The issue seems obvious since the US has or is near peak gas. Vehicles should not be running on natural gas. We should be saving the gas for load-leveling and other uses such as making fertilizer. We should be developing electrified train routes and bringing electric cars out on the road. All of this seems obvious to me. But, I have trouble with getting these issues into the article because there are no credible news sources that are being critical of the plan or looking to improve it. We need mainstream news to pickup on these options so that we can compile them. Grrrr!!! exactly Kgrr (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to various points:

• Electric motors are wonderful; batteries generally suck (expensive; low energy density; long recharge times; steady loss of charge capacity during use, particularly after many deep-discharge cycles; serious drawbacks in cold weather; shall I go on?). I agree with you, and with Plug In America, that electric cars or plug-in hybrids would be a desirable option for people who must have personal motor vehicles for limited-range commuting. (Personally, I'd prefer a massive switch to telecommuting and bicycling which have the lowest possible carbon and oil import footprints, and I suspect that's where we may be heading if anything like a worst-case post-peak oil scenario plays out.) However, the year is 2008 and there is still not one mass-production battery car or plug-in hybrid on the U.S. market. Deep pockets can get on the waiting list for a Tesla Roadster. Maybe the Chevy Volt will appear on time and in appreciable numbers - if General Motors is still in business next year. In the meantime, millions of CNG vehicles are running right now, and converting existing engines is straightforward, with no loss of range or performance. Pickens wants to reduce U.S. petroleum imports quickly, and CNG is the most effective option at the moment. Of course Pickens says repeatedly he's only against one thing: foreign oil, so he's got nothing against anybody building battery cars.
• Peak gas: that was the first thing I wondered about when I heard of the Pickens Plan. But then Pickens described how advances in gas recovery technology have recently opened up shale deposits in the U.S. which were previously unexploitable. (Peak gas#North American natural gas crisis does not mention anything about this.) According to Pickens, the U.S. recently doubled its natural gas reserve estimates, and is likely to double them again soon. However, obviously Pickens realizes that the only way to fuel large numbers of vehicles with natural gas is to reduce the current natural gas consumption somewhere else. Pickens happens to have chosen power generation as the application to free up. An even larger application is central heating, and renewable electricity combined with geotheral heat pumps can free that up too.
• I disagree with the idea that a transportation fuel should be used for anything else. And so does the market. Before the first oil price shocks in the 1970s, the U.S. used substantial amounts of oil for power generation. Now the U.S. gets only something like 2% of its electricity from oil, if I recall correctly. There are many sources of energy suitable for static consumption, but only liquid fuels from petroleum have been generally practical sources for mobile energy. To the very short list of mobile energy sources, we can now add biofuels and compressed natural gas. (Electrifying transportation is another option, but the U.S. spent the last 60 years tearing down its electric rail system, and putting it back will be harder than building it the first time around, because now there is lots of other built stuff in the way.) Since transportation is so critical to the economy, and can only be powered by a tiny number of energy sources, any fuel suitable for transportation will command a premium in the market. That is why gasoline is one of the most expensive ways to buy energy today, more expensive even than retail electricity on a raw energy content comparison (let alone before we factor in the Carnot efficiency of internal combustion engines, which makes retail electricity several times cheaper for motive power, if only you can get it to the moving vehicle in sufficient quantities).
  • Once the market realizes it can use natural gas for mobile power, the price will rise enough to stimulate its removal from power generation, just as happened earlier to petroleum, which the market also spared for transportation.
  • In light of the usefulness of natural gas for transportation, using it for static applications such as power generation and hydrogen production for ammonia plants is a very bad idea. We can generate electricity from renewables, and hydrogen from renewable electricity. For an analysis of generating renewable ammonia from wind power, see:
    • Bradley, David (2004-02-06). "A Great Potential: The Great Lakes as a Regional Renewable Energy Source" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-04.
  • Natural gas is not the only source of methane. There are several commercially viable pathways to renewable methane in the form of biogas. Methane happens to be much easier to make from biomass sources than the higher alkanes in gasoline and diesel. (Methane appears spontaneously as landfill gas in commercially significant quantities, for example. Not enough to power the whole vehicle fleet, but enough to illustrate how easy it is to make methane.) Thus it would be easier to get to a biofuels economy if we had lots of vehicles running on CNG than with the current rolling stock that needs gasoline or diesel. Biogas digesters are sufficiently low-tech to be popular in third-world villages. Contrast that with the relative difficulty of building cellulosic ethanol biorefineries to convert the most abundant forms of biomass into usable liquid fuels. Even an advanced nation like the U.S. has struggled for years to develop cellulosic ethanol to commercial scale, and may finally be just getting started.
  • The reason peak oil is a threat is not because it means we run out of energy (there could still be lots of coal, and wind turbines, etc.), but because petroleum is so critical for transportation. Therefore, any other form of energy which can replace petroleum in transportation on a large scale becomes equally critical. The general rule with economic substitution is that you allocate your least versatile resources to their limited options first, and save your most versatile resources for the jobs that only they can do. For a sporting analogy, in American football the most critical position is quarterback. If an athlete has the skills to excel at the quarterback position, that's what he plays, even if he is equally capable at any other position. It's much easier to fill the other positions from a larger pool of athletes, while only a very few have the rare combination of skills to play quarterback. Transportation fuel is like the "quarterback" of energy. That will of course change if battery technology improves, or if someone develops a practical energy carrier such as hydrogen (hydrogen of course has a long list of woeful problems holding it back).

--Teratornis (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I stumbled across an image showing a wind farm actually in Texas: Image:Windmills south of Dumas, TX IMG 0570.JPG, so I put that in the article in place of the image depicting a wind farm in Germany. --Teratornis (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional issues

• Al Gore's plan vs Pickens plan - who is right? [1]
• Why not electric vehicles? Electric cars for shorter trips, electrified rail for longer trips.

Kgrr (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gore and Pickens address different aspects of the energy problem. Gore views global warming as the primary problem, so he focuses on reducing carbon footprint. That means phasing out coal from electric power generation first. Electrifying transportation will take decades, by any conceivable plan. Pickens views peak oil and energy security as the primary problems: "You've got to do something about the seven hundred billion" - what the U.S. will pay for foreign oil in 2008. Gore also acknowledges the rising prices of fossil fuels, led by petroleum, as a problem, but he has sort of tacked that on lately, as Gore was a climate change awareness guy for years rather than a peak oil doomer. Even so, on the power generation side, Gore and Pickens are practically reading from the same script. Both call for massive programs to scale up electricity generation from renewables. Obviously, once the electricity is there, the market will try to use it for everything, including transportation.

Asking "why not?" is the wrong question. Pickens says he is only against one thing: foreign oil. The article you cited implies an exclusivity that Pickens repeatedly disavows. Pickens says he is for anything that reduces U.S. oil imports, which includes lots of things he doesn't focus on much in his presentations: solar, geothermal, biomass, and nuclear power; improvements in efficiency; telecommuting; electric vehicles; etc. Pickens is personally involved with wind and natural gas, so that's what he spends the most time talking about. His brief talks give barely enough time to scratch the surface on the topic of energy (but if you watch all his videos on YouTube and listen to how he answers questions after his talk, you'll see what I mean; and Pickens' brief summary of his plan hints at a lot more than he spells out - it's aimed at the general public rather than engineers and scientists). It so happens that wind power for electricity and compressed natural gas for motor vehicles are here right now, they work right now, and they can be rapidly scaled. Those two technologies could begin to reduce U.S. oil imports quickly:

• Wind farms can be built ten times faster than nuclear power plants
• The U.S. has enormous wind resources, equal to several times the total U.S. energy consumption from all sources
• Millions of motor vehicles are already running on CNG, with no penalty of performance or range
• Converting existing internal combustion engines to run on CNG is not too difficult
• Pickens advocates starting with CNG for fleet vehicles rather than personal vehicles, for the following reasons (some of which he articulates in his talks, and some of which I mention because they are obvious):
  • Large trucks (and diesel-electric trains, and ships) use much more fuel per vehicle, so fewer engines would need converting for a given reduction in petroleum use
  • Large freight vehicles account for about 30% of U.S. petroleum consumption, making them a big target
  • By coincidence, trucks use about the same amount of energy that natural gas supplies to U.S. power generation, so the Pickens Plan calls for moving natural gas out of power generation and into trucks
  • Large trucks typically stick to a limited number of routes and use a limited number of fueling stations, meaning they would need fewer CNG fueling stations to be built (unlike personal cars, which would need many times more fueling stations)
  • Large trucks typically do longer trips with heavy loads, making them very difficult to power with any available (or even foreseeable) battery technology ("You're not going to run the 18-wheeler on the battery")
  • Relatively few decision makers have to commit to switch entire fleets of trucks, trains, and ships to CNG, compared to millions of individual car owners who would have to decide to switch their personal vehicles
  • Fleet operators have easier access to finance than much of the motoring public
  • Converting massive numbers of personal vehicles to CNG, and building fueling stations for them, would be more expensive
  • This doesn't mean Pickens is against personal CNG vehicles - in fact, he advocates for them - but he doesn't expect CNG adoption to go as fast with personal vehicles at it could with fleet vehicles

Pickens has repeatedly referred to natural gas as a "bridge" fuel for transportation. It can cut U.S. oil imports now, and buy time to develop better batteries, or fuel cells, or electrify the railroads. I.e., Pickens is well aware of peak oil and peak gas, and does not anticipate CNG being any more than a temporary fix. But according to Pickens, CNG is the only source of portable energy which can significantly reduce U.S. oil imports quickly. Pickens says if the U.S. does not reduce its oil imports quickly and by a large amount, the U.S. will not have the capability to electrify its railroads, build the hydrogen economy, or produce millions of battery cars. The U.S. economy simply cannot sustain the current outflow of wealth to pay for all the imported oil, and Pickens predicts that the cost of oil will go up as world oil production declines post-peak. (As I mentioned above, I've watched every Pickens video I have found on YouTube since he started going public about energy policy, so I believe I am fairly representing his views. If necessary, I believe I could source all the words I'm putting in his mouth, but I'd have to scour through his numerous print interviews to pick up his responses to various questions and objections.) --Teratornis (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Teratornis, thanks for your response. If you feel strongly about all these issues, find references that back your points and add them to each of the issues. This will help round out the article.

• Battery technology has improved immensely in the last 2-3 years. I belong to the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association. So I'm very biased. I can tell you that several of the lithium battery technologies are looking very well - fast charge times, good capacity and yes, they are expensive, but volume will bring the prices down.
• Peak gas is happening in the US. So you have some information that proves otherwise, please add it to the Peak gas article. I really would love your contribution there about shale gas and other technologies. Find a Perkins Plan expert that says that the US gas supply will not be tightening up and add that to this article.
• Wind power is now cheaper than most forms of energy for both CapEx and OpEx, including coal and nuclear. And best of all, zero high-level waste.
• Hydrogen fails in my book due to the large amount of fundamental problems.
• etc. etc. Please find references to back the excellent points you make and edit the article to reflect your documented viewpoint(s). The more detailed viewpoints we have, the more the article becomes balanced and information rich. This is what readers want. Kgrr (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, feeling strongly about a subject is contrary to WP:NPOV, but of course the only people who spend hours studying a subject and editing articles about it will almost always be driven by some sort of viewpoint or agenda. And just to clarify, I've got nothing against batteries other than wondering how long it would take to replace two hundred million internal combustion engines. (I'm aware that batteries are improving, because I've been bicycling at night for decades, and I've watched bicycle lights evolving from barely-adequate to not-bad-if-you-spend-enough.) From an individual's perspective, buying an electric car could be a smart idea, but how many people can do that, and how soon? It seems to me that having more alternatives beats having fewer, so I wouldn't see CNG competing with hybrids until one or both were to gain significant market share, which might be years away. I agree that the Pickens Plan needs more depth to address the many questions people will have about the plan, particularly of the "But what about (technology X)?" variety. It seems a common tendency is to suppose that if Pickens isn't pushing something, he must be against it. Tracking down references for all the above points will be some work, in part because Pickens has elaborated many of his views by speaking rather than by writing. I'll work on referencing a little at a time (my notes about energy-related articles are in User:Teratornis/Energy). Of course, other editors can pitch in. I might get on pickensplan.com and try to start a discussion about saving more natural gas with geothermal heat pumps and sustainable ammonia production. Pickens says he is picking up some ideas from his "followers," so it may be (remotely) possible for informed nobodies to actually have some tiny influence on the subject of this article. --Teratornis (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Teratornis, First of all, I still don't think you understand WP:NPOV. "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There is absolutely nothing wrong with capturing all sides of an argument. And all sides will have strong POV. The balance is creating the balance by representing all sides. For example, I have found people where I work that like the generating electricity by wind part and others that feel strongly that the power should be generated by nuclear power plants. I have found there are people that support using gas to fuel cars, others that feel that it should electric and others that it should be plant-based alcohols or bio-diesel. As you can see, when the discussion fairly includes the many viewpoints, it becomes neutral.

It will take a while before CNG and/or Electric begins to displace the gasoline car market. In 2006, 7,667,066 cars were sold. This in itself can take ten years. However, there are quite a few electric cars out there, quite a few conversion kits to go from a hybrid car to plug-in hybrids. Also, there commercially made Hondas and quite a few companies that will convert a car from gasoline to CNG (or dual-fuel).

You can have a lot of fun with a group like pickensplan.com and learn a lot too. Certainly, it's a way to influence people in the group. Hopefully, you can have some influence to make a difference.Kgrr (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there is a difference between having a neutral point of view versus writing from a neutral point of view. Only a Martian could have a neutral point of view on the subject of energy for Earthlings. Earthlings who have opinions about their energy can, if they make an effort, write neutrally about it. On a wiki this tends to come about as editors with opposing opinions keep editing each other's work until they converge on something all sides can consider a fair expression of what everyone thinks. Since revert wars grow tiresome, experienced wiki editors learn how to, essentially, write for their opponents.

On the subject of car sales, I happened to quote that same figure a few days ago in a discussion on another site, in response to an electric vehicle enthusiast who seems to believe electric vehicles can make a dent in U.S. petroleum consumption faster than the sales rate of new automobiles would imply. In that discussion, I pointed out the additional buzzkill that sales of (probably expensive) new electric vehicles may be slowed (not stopped) by falling resale values of used gas-guzzlers when oil prices resume their upward march. I mentioned that even when an energy-saving technology is perfectly functional and provably saves the consumer lots of money, its adoption can still be perplexingly slow (examples: improved insulation for buildings; and compact fluorescent lamps, technologies that still aren't fully used despite being readily available for years). Thus we may be 1-5 years away from large-scale manufacture of EVs and plug-in hybrids, and it's not clear how many more years after that it will take for them to dominate new car sales. It's possible that Pickens may be indirectly promoting the electric vehicle option by raising awareness among the U.S. population of the facts of foreign oil dependency, thereby motivating more people to do something about it by whatever methods will work. Thus if someone was trying to promote bicycling, telecommuting, electric vehicles, or anything else that can reduce petroleum dependency, Pickens has made their job a whole lot easier.

As I pointed out above, CNG for fleet vehicles can probably start to offset petroleum consumption faster than plug-in hybrids for individual transport, because 18-wheelers and buses use so much fuel per vehicle. Consider that a single metro bus runs all day and moves hundreds of people - converting that one vehicle from diesel to CNG, which works right now, probably offsets as much petroleum as switching several hundred individual vehicles to electrics. (It would be interesting to work out the numbers, or find a reference that already did.) This is not an argument against plug-in hybrids, and it's somewhat regrettable that some critics of Pickens seem to want to cast the options as mutually exclusive or suggest that Pickens must be against whatever he isn't specifically promoting himself. CNG for buses seems like a no-brainer already, as many municipalities find themselves strapped by high diesel fuel costs at a time when many are attracting record numbers of riders. CNG-fueled buses could effectively replace large numbers of gasoline-powered private cars right now, and because buses use less fuel per passenger than the cars they would replace, an energy unit of CNG would save more energy in the form of gasoline. Many automobile-dependent communities are not well-served by mass transit, but municipalities are having trouble expanding their bus routes because of the high cost of diesel fuel. CNG costs about half of what diesel costs right now, so CNG could quickly allow municipalities to expand their transit routes and take more cars off the road. --Teratornis (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The nuclear option

I added a section where (right wing) organizations contend that nuclear power would be a better choice than wind farms. This still needs to be balanced out with reasoning that nuclear power plants are not environmentally sound, are going to face peak uranium, and really don't take a lot of land. We need more rebuttal info to that POV. Kgrr (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Even Greenpeace's ex-leader thinks nuclear is the way to go. It would appear that there is less resistance to nuclear energy now that gas has hit $4 a gallon, fuel oil is through the roof, electricity prices have soared and there is an obvious link between energy and national security. I hear a lot less rumbling from the left than I did 20 years ago. Remember when NIMBY (not in my backyard) was all the rage? Haven't heard that one in a while. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders is one of the very few environmentalists that thinks nuclear power is the way to go. His pro-nuclear coalition is funded by the NEI.
  • Electric prices here in Washington have not soared probably due to our 72% renewable energy (Hydro and wind, some solar) we also have some gas, one nuke and one coal.
  • You can hear plenty of Nuclear NIMBY here in Washington. In 1983, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) defaulted on $2.25 billion in municipal bonds associated with its nuclear construction program. The residents of Washington are still paying for the bill. All we have to show for is a couple of cooling towers in Satsop. Thank god. There are plenty of people here in Washington that hate nuclear power due to the radioactive leaks into Columbia River from Hanford site. There were leaps of joy when Trojan was dismantled because they built it right on a fault line and developed steam tube cracks just four years into its life. Put me on that list. Kgrr (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a Template:Main with links to Nuclear power and Nuclear debate, since other Wikipedia articles treat these issues in detail already. Pickens himself says he does not oppose nuclear power (he is for anything American) but he left it out of his plan because new nuclear power plants take too long to build (10 years or more). --Teratornis (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the exclusionary connotation in phrases such as "nuclear is the way to go" as if that implies there is only one way to go. In Pickens' interviews he repeatedly emphasizes that the U.S. needs to attack the petroleum-dependency problem on all fronts. Basically Pickens embraces every proposal advanced by the political right or left which could demonstrably reduce petroleum imports. An over-reliance on any one particular energy source can be risky, and indeed the U.S. has already made that mistake with petroleum. Nuclear power poses all sorts of drawbacks, not the least of which is vulnerability to terrorism with the plants themselves, and during shipments of nuclear fuel and wastes. In contrast, wind farms are not attractive targets for terrorists, who might manage to knock down a wind turbine or two, but would be hard pressed to do the kind of damage they could inflict by breaching a nuclear reactor. Another problem with nukes is that they create their own kinds of problems for the power grid due to their ability to run at only one of two possible power levels: maximum capacity, or down for weeks at a time of unscheduled maintenance. Nuclear power plants have almost no ability to follow demand variability on the grid, so they create grid-management problems similar to the wind farms that nuclear proponents like to disparage. But as with wind farms, these problems are easy to manage as long as the grid has a sufficient diversity of power sources. About the only form of power that provides all the characteristics grid operators love, in one package, is hydroelectricity, which can provide both baseload power and peaking power. --Teratornis (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That is, as long as the hydroelectric plant has a consistent flow of water. Most rivers experience seasonal variations in flow, in some cases drastic variations, so hydroelectric plants work better in conjunction with other power sources on the grid (such as wind power) that can let the hydroelectric plant store up water in its reservoir when for example the wind is blowing. --Teratornis (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)