Liveblog of Pickens on Hannity Show II

4:08 PM: Sean announces T. Boone to be on in the next hour. Supposedly to talk oil prices and how oil is jeopardizing our national and economic security. $700 billion has to come up, even if the oil price isn’t anywhere NEAR what is needed for $700 billion.

6:20 PM: AARGH! Stupid WIS radio! I just realized that I’ve been listening to a looped version of the first hour! So that means no liveblog. But I’ll try to see if I can find a clip of the broadcast and analyze that. But because Hannity’s website sucks, I doubt I’ll be able to find this…

Review of Pickens on Leno

You can see the video here:

http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/video/episodes/#vid=648021

Skip to the 35:00 mark, that’s when he stops doing his old man impression and gets to the Pickens Plan.

And of course, he started with the $700 billion lie, just like I thought he would. He said that he did the analysis ($700 billion and 70% of consumed oil is foreign) then went with his plan. If the analysis is wrong, which it is, what does that say about his plan?

Then he asserts that we (The US) is paying for both sides of the war, but doesn’t specify which war (Iraq? Afghanistan? On Terror?).

Then he states that the OPEC countries had revenues of $250 billion and now that’s $1.25 trillion. I’ll have to check that out in a bit to see if that’s correct or not.

Then he says “If you want to see where your money is going, go over to the middle east and look at those buildings.” Which contradicts his assertion that oil money is funding terrorism. If oil money is funding terrorism, then it’s not going to building Dubai. I’m pretty sure that terrorists, at least of the fundamentalist Islamic type, do not like Dubai, but they don’t bomb it because they’re Arabs and that would put a pretty big negative on their public opinion. It’s easy to stay popular if you’re attacking a foreigner, it’s less so if you’re attacking someone who looks and speaks like you. But that’s a different story that T. Boone isn’t going try and catch up.

But then he says that he “doesn’t criticize them, but that we’re to blame for the fix we’re in.” Which is a pretty big paradox he sets up. Does he think we’re funding terrorists through the middle east countries we import oil from? Or does he think that there’s nothing wrong with what the Middle East is spending their money on? But you can’t get both ways there.

He then goes into the plan where he says that we have an abundance of natural gas and his usual “it’s cheaper, cleaner and ours” routine he’s done many times before. They get into a little banter about how the US is the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, which is true. He doesn’t mention that there are other countries that have alot more natural gas than we do. What happens when the US runs out of our reserves?

The discussion then turns to municipal bus fleets, and T. Boone uses the opportunity to go after Dallas for considering to run their buses on diesel, about which he says that “clean diesel” is an oxymoron. Jay then compares using diesel like a drug dealer, where they give you the price low and then raise the price later. T. Boone agrees with that analogy.

And again, Pickens is wrong. It’s natural gas that’s historically “cheap”, though rising in cost along with gas. Here’s why. Oil is already been priced high, because we’re already using it as the main transportation fuel. If Dallas is struggling with the decision, already knowing that diesel has already hit the $5 a gallon mark, then what is it going to go from here? However, natural gas is increasing in usage and the price is where it is right now. But what happens in the future (which is what this discussion is all about) is when the Pickens Plan is implemented and everyone switches to natural gas? The price increases much more than diesel, which people switch away from. So it’s actually natural gas that’s like the drug. Which makes Pickens the drug dealer, in this analogy.

He then tops it off with a threat to move to Fort Worth because their fleet runs on natural gas. I’ll believe that when I see it.

Jay then mentions that it’s easy to convert cars to natural gas, though I don’t see anything in a cursory search of the internet that suggests easy (and this isn’t “change the oil” easy, we’re talking “replace the transmission”). 98% of car owners aren’t going to be able to do this themselves, which is more of a sign of the complexity of the situation than anything else.

But then T. Boone has the revealing moment of the interview. He states that “he’s focused on trucks” and gives some statistics on that. What he doesn’t mention that is that the reason he’s interested is because he has a giant financial stake in getting trucks to run on natural gas. He’s on the board of directors of Clean Energy Fuels Corp, a supplier of natural gas to fleet vehicles (trucks). If he can get his plan to focus on trucks, then his company can see a large increase in demand for his services.

And lo and behold, he’s mentioned countless times that he wants the federal government to FORCE fleet vehicles to run on natural gas. In fact, at the 38:41 mark, he almost lets this cat out of the bag. He says:

I want those trucks. And I want the government, and I want the administration coming in to—you know, I started this on July the 8th.

See, he almost said what he wanted to do was force companies to use natural gas. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that servicing fleet vehicles is EXACTLY what his company does. No politicking there at all, no financial benefit to him personally. Nope, not at all.

They wrap up by Jay mentioning that it’s about a $1.50 a gallon to fill up natural gas. This might be true… if you live in Utah or Oklahoma. (It’s no coincidence that these are two major producing areas in the US). Otherwise, you’re seeing above $2 per unit.

And he ends up with a prediction of $200-300 a barrel of oil if we continue with our current consumption. Considering that we haven’t even reached his prediction of $150 a barrel that he said we’d reach this summer, I’d take this with a bit of a grain of salt.

He also never got around to covering the wind part of his plan, but that part also has as many holes in it as his natural gas plan. So it’s probably best not to take up more time, but he did run long on the natural gas part.

So overall, he used his folksy style to cover up a bunch of lies and self-interest for the show. And the worse part is that he probably wasn’t very entertaining to boot. But we’ll see if his book promotion tour brings up any interest in his plan or not.

The Energy Deficit and the Pickens Plan

This graphic is from the EIA in their energy brief on energy subsidies:

From this graph, we consume more energy (blue line) than we produce domestically (red line). The difference between the two is how much we have to import to balance the books, so to speak. This deficit amounts to about 30% of all energy consumed on a yearly basis.

The question now goes to those who want the US to become “energy independent”. How do you get those two lines to converge. You have to either bring down consumption, increase production or end up with a combination of the two. But if you don’t, then you’re still going to be importing energy. That’s the bottom line.

This is the elephant in the room for the Pickens Plan. Right now, the plan is to shift consumption sources around, from oil to natural gas in road transportation and from natural gas to wind in electricity. But shifting the production resources doesn’t address the fundamental imbalance between demand and supply. The difference will still need to be made up, and the Pickens Plan doesn’t do that at all. He’s just playing Three Card Monte with energy.

But one argument would be: yeah, but we’re reducing our imports of oil, so that’s something. But something will have to replace it if you don’t increase energy production by 30%. That is not the goal of the Pickens Plan, so there will still be energy imports even if the Pickens Plan is implemented.

But we have to make sure those dirty Arabs and other terrorist nations don’t get any American oil money, even if we end up buying their natural gas, uranium and other energy sources, which then means that the Pickens Plan will accomplish nothing. Well, except put money in Pickens’ pocket.

How much land would be needed for the Pickens Plan to work?

But let’s give the benefit of the doubt to Pickens and say that wind could make up the difference. How many windmills and land would be needed for it to work?

From the graph in my previous post, we have a power deficit of 300,000,000,000,000,000 British Thermal Units. This converted to kilowatt hours is 87 921 325 000 000 kWh. You need to get capacity to figure out how much space is needed, which is in units of kilowatts so you divide by the number of hours in a year, specifically 8420. That means you need to have 10441962589 kW of capacity to get this much power in a year.

But wind turbines don’t run 24 hours a day, in fact, they only run about 33 to 50% of the time, so you actually need double the capacity, AT BEST, to get the capacity needed. So you really need 20883925178 kW to supply the power importation needs for the US.

How much land would this require? For that I went here and used their calculator. The end results:

To get the US off foreign energy, we would need 41,767,850 turbines, which would cover 10,441,962.5 acres. This is also 16316 square miles. Or nearly the size of Vermont and New Hampshire COMBINED. And this is just for the physical items of turbines themselves.

Using a different method, a rule of thumb is that one square kilometer can support 10 to 15 MW of capacity. So using the figure above, we’d get 20883925 MW. So dividing by the best case scenario of 15 MW per square km, we get 1392262 sq. km or 537555 square miles. This is approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and half of South Dakota, including urban areas, highways, mountains, and water.

So when T. Boone says that the Great Plains is the Saudi Arabia of wind, you better believe it because if we’re going to use wind to get the US energy independent, the Great Plains will become one giant wind farm.

And this is under a BEST case scenario. Just for fun, lets use the lower end of the power estimates (under the cut):

John McCain Uses the Pickens Lie

From John McCain’s acceptance speech last night:

My fellow Americans, when I’m President, we’re going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. (Emphasis added)

I’ve documented the fact that $700 billion is a bald-faced, economically illiterate number that was conjured up by T. Boone that has no basis on the realities of the oil market or just plain facts. Add to the fact that McCain just lumped natural gas in with solar and wind (“one of these things is not like the other, one of these things is just not the same”), and T. Boone must have been jumping for joy with the speech last night. I’m sure one of the first things McCain will reach across the aisle to Nancy Pelosi is to force private fleet vehicles to run on natural gas.

So if you oppose the Pickens Plan, or don’t like the fact that it’s based on sketchy numbers, has a significant chance of screwing up our electricity market and backed by someone who has a huge financial stake in it, then you don’t have a choice in the election. Well you do, but you won’t hear about it in the media.

I would call on John McCain’s campaign to fully disclose their relationship with T. Boone and fess up to the fact that he cited a horribly incorrect number during a nationally televised speech. It’s the least that he can do “for the country.” But I doubt that will happen.

Response to a Barrett Comment

From the comments on the Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid post:

Right on, Mike! I’m with you all the way. Next time I’d like to hear you thoughts on Jane B Dyer the Democratic Party’s candidate for Barrett’s job.
She is the kind of candidate SC needs but the media seem to be conspiring to keep her candidacy quiet. She’s been an Air Force flier, She is now a FEDEX captain on one of those big freighters besides being a Mom and a Grandmother. She lives in Easley and she needs the help of guys like you.
Bill

Well, lest anyone think that I’m partisan in my distrust of politicians (unlike most of the media out there), here’s my thoughts on Ms. Dyer:

Sorry Bill, but it looks like Barrett doesn’t have any kind of competition in this race. Ms. Dyer is parroting the same rhetoric that has become standard for all politicians. But I think she’d get the T. Boone Pickens seal of approval.

Below is a more detailed look at Ms. Dyer and her environmental energy policy.

New Anti-Pickens Graphic

In light of my questioning of the $700 billion figure quoted by Pickens and perpetuated by… everyone else, I’ve “modified” one of the badges used by Pickens to help spread his plan.

I’m happy to take suggestions on how to improve the graphic. There are other of Pickens’ badges that I would like to correct, and I will post those in the future.

Gresham Barrett Brings the Stupid

Here in Columbia SC, we’re doomed to have at least one talk radio host who’s a complete moron, Kevan Cohen. He’s the definition of a neo-conservative, and makes my ears bleed if I listen to him for more than 15 minutes at a time. You can’t go five minutes without him making some pro-military or pro-war comment, but on every other topic, he’s about as spineless as they come.

So that’s why I didn’t hear him and Congressman Gresham Barrett talk about energy until the end of their conversation. Hannity wasn’t doing it for me today, so I switched to the other station. I only caught the end of the conversation, but this is where Mr. Barrett brought it. And by it, I mean his completely stupid idea.

Make SOUTH CAROLINA energy independent.

There’s enough problems with making the US energy independent. Like the fact that our electric grid is connected to both Canada and Mexico. But it’s at least possible given the resources of the entire country.

South Carolina, on the other hand, doesn’t have the resources to independent from anyone on energy. We don’t have coal beds, we don’t have natural gas production areas, we don’t have uranium mines. And most importantly, we don’t have the ability to use solar, wind or geothermal energy:

So in order for South Carolina to be energy independent, we’d have to completely rely on the state’s hydroelectric dam system. Needless to say, this isn’t a very smart way to encourage economic development, or keep the lights on in South Carolina.

So what does energy independence for South Carolina look like for Mr. Barrett? Pork. Lots and Lots of Pork.

Pork for nuclear.
Pork for biofuels.
Pork for hydrogen.
Pork for universities.
Pork for everyone.

He will basically be hiding a pork bill under the guise of making South Carolina the “leader in energy.” But he has to return the investment that his sponsors have made in him. His top sponsor, Washington Group International runs the Savannah River Site, which handles, you guessed it, the Department of Energy’s nuclear research. He also has received money from South Carolina’s investor-owned and electric cooperatives who have a heavy stake in all of the nuclear reactors found in the state. So any pork toward nuclear, which he’s pushing heavily, goes towards his financial benefactors. Big surprise there.

Finally, he came up with this bit of genius. He mentioned in passing that by building nuclear reactors, they can serve as desalinization plants as well. Uh, yeah. There’s just a little question of… where are you going to put this nuclear desalinization plant? Myrtle Beach? No, they can’t even handle motorcycles, nevermind a nuclear reactor? Charleston? Perhaps. But do you remember a little thing called Hugo, Mr. Barrett?

The point is that “energy independence” has become a phrase that has lost all meaning. Much like “going green,” this is a phrase that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean.

Liveblog of T. Boone Pickens interview with Sean Hannity

I heard on the way home that Sean Hannity was interview T. Boone Pickens on the Pickens Plan. Since I was in the car, I couldn’t post directly to the internet, so I had to write it down and copy it now. As Pickens is a Republican supporter (he sponsored the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), I can now look in hindsight that Hannity would throw softballs at Pickens. But I was expecting at least some questions that were more critical than were asked.

You can read the liveblog after the cut…

Pickens Supports Gore for Energy Czar

I really didn’t want this to be an anti-Pickens blog, but if the guy insists on making stupid ideas and backing them up with more stupidity, then I have to call him out on it. It doesn’t look like anyone in the ancient media is going to do that.

So this post is about an interview that T. Boone Pickens gave to the National Journal about his campaign. Unfortunately, the interview at the National Journal is gated, so I won’t bother linking to that, but the Free Republic does have a copy, so you can check out the strangely formatted interview there.

Here, I’m going to just highlight the part where he praises former Vice President Al Gore.