He's the primary financier in Mesa Energy's 3000MW wind farm.    The land the company owns also has some gas reserves which he wants to empty, the sell its space for carbon storage.  

His plan is the largest wind farm proposal in the nation and he has just ordered 1,000 turbines from GE Wind.  The order sapped up NA turbine supply thru Q1 2010.  

However, like most wind generation proposals, they hinge on transmission since most are not near existing transmission right-of-way.  He wants the DOE to expand their eminent domain authority to nab land from property owners in the midwest and force transmission towers thru.  He believes if a wind generator has a signed power contract with a customer, the DOE should give the state regulatory authority 12 months to site the line or else.  

That's his ultimate M.O.  Bring attention to what he is doing, and ultimately have enough public sentiment to see the transmission hurdle kicked over.  

The move for natural gas is over emphasized and I'm surprise he is even going that far with it.  Everyone already fears LNG is heading to near demand destructive levels as we have with crude.  Whatever excess is out there (mainly in the U.S.) will be purchased and exported to Asia.  

Look, we're screwed - we need every solution on the table and implemented steadily.  At a point in time down the road, 2020-2030 we'll see what technology works best in our capitalistic marketplace.  Then American greed will take over and we'll get out of this mess by 2045-2060, God willing.  

Why?  Because climate is not the only thing poised to crush our society - energy independence, energy security and economic destruction are all very real.  

Those are the problems, they are massive, so the solution is everything we have - wind, gas, oil, nuclear, eec, cleaner dirty coal, ccs, geothermal, new hydro, synthetic fuels, pv solar, CHP, solar arrays & windows, you name it, its all necessary, yesterday and not solely because of climate.  

...both about Pickens' motivations as well as the urgency of this problem ("climate is not the only thing poised to crush our society - energy independence, energy security and economic destruction are all very real").  We need to get moving with extreme urgency.  Do the politicians get it?

...but each problem carries with it, its own variable degree of merit as interpreted by party and politicians.  Their efficacious supporters take those reigns and walla, we have uninformed masses becoming entrenched, building taller barriers b/n them and the other solutions which aim to collectively result the problem this nation faces.  As you can see (or not) I'm on your side, trying to inform.

Today we have new coal in Wise County - almost actually.  But next decade we'll four 70 year old coal plants not worth retrofitting with power plant efficiency modification or C02 scrubbers.  With C02 regulation, profitability and age will force their shutdown.  

Exchanging some of those old very dirty retiring coal plants with some newer cleaner, although dirty, coal plants like Wise County, is a vital step forward in the right direction.    This sad fact is being shoved aside no different than skeptical Republican conservatives opposed to energy action because of climate.  

Check out this excerpt from Bush's 2001 failed Energy Plan

One of the factors harming the environment today is the very lack of a comprehensive, long-term national energy policy. States confronting blackouts must take desperate measures, often at the expense of environmental standards, requesting waivers of environmental rules, and delaying the implementation of anti-pollution efforts. Shortfalls in electricity generating capacity and shortsighted (electricity generating) policies have blocked construction of new, cleaner plants, leaving no choice but to rely on older, inefficient plants to meet demand.  The increased use of emergency power sources, such as diesel generators, results in greater air pollution.

It is sad that 7 years later, this is so true.

Now we have protests building against new natural gas exploration - another vital aspect to replace those retiring coal plants and to help the marketability of renewables such as wind.  And as if it is being unnoticed, environmentalists are building an army of protesters online, against Dominion's North Anna expansion.  

C02 isn't the only problem we face, that's part of the problem.  Renewables in Virginia won't even dent this picture, especially w/o the smart grid, and that's not going to be completed until mid-2020's.  And we mustn't complain about that either.  $600 million thru 2014 isn't chump change.  Dominion knows it is the hub of what will make the transition to cleaner energy possible.  The average Joe doesn't.  

Desert ecologists will prevent us from putting solar arrays in the desert Southwest.  Land use issues will plague wind farm construction and transmission.  We won't be able to use coal.  No one wants to dispose of nuclear waste in their state even if it is miles underground.  And people will fight the extraction of natural gas from non-conventional sites.  And we won't be able to use oil sands either.

Looks like we'll have to move into Gers (or Yurts if you prefer) and devolve back into a simpler agrarian society.  =)

too many urban liberals types think renewables can power all of the nations needs as a substitute.  Nice thought, but hello, next year isn't the start of the 22nd century?  Cut it out already, please!  This is about as bad as Rush Limbaugh espousing the greater use of coal w/o any remorse, just from the opposite side of the spectrum.  

Many conservatives make overly broad, straw man arguments.

As soon as conservative elites (elected officials, especially) actually start respecting the whole of scientific opinion (you know, including the conclusions they don't like, such as global warming), then maybe there will be a basis point to start from in these discussions.

Tell me where the attitude you speak of which exists in DOE energy policy today?  Cap-n-trade?  Heck Democrats haven't reached a consensus there.  Please read my reply to Lowell, and keep in mind, I'm no skeptic, and I have been aware of and accepting of AGW theory since the late-90's, a time when my attention led me there.  To what degree does man-made C02 force temperature, I don't think the scientific community is certain of that.  

And don't call me a conservative Ron!  I prefer the label "progressive conservative" instead ;)

As for the straw man comment, hmm, have you been reading all of RK lately?

at this comment from above:

too many urban liberals types think renewables can power all of the nations needs as a substitute.  Nice thought, but hello, next year isn't the start of the 22nd century?  Cut it out already, please!

You're obviously well versed on the energy situation. Please to note, that I said

conservative elites

to differentiate between you and say, Mr. Limbaugh or Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney or Mr. McConnell. And imo you have displayed much more intelligence and realism on this thread than those clowns combined but, sadly, serial commenters on blogs (including me) are not exactly public elites. Maybe someday! :)

And heck, you are a progressive conservative if you believe in AGW. As for CO2 and temperature, well, I think it's pretty well established. It seems to me the conservative thing to do (in the old-school sense) is to say, "Look, we obviously don't understand all the phenomena at play here, but it would be prudent to try and reduce the atmospheric levels of CO2 back to what they were at the end of the 19th century or at least mid-20th century, removing all the excess carbon that we placed there via combustion of carbon-based fuels." And there are market-based solutions to do that, but the government has to create that market.

I am pro nuclear power.  It's as clean as it gets (unless it gets really dirty ;-)  If you can dispose of the material and address safety issues (3-mile island) I think this is the way to go.

If the entire grid was on nuclear, solar, and EXISTING hydroelectric (new damns not so good) as Pickens says you can divert carbon based energy to transportation.

I agree that there are these extremists on both sides of this debate.  It's tough to have common sense solutions when there is so much rhetoric on the issue.

That's one way out of a crises, I guess nobody is going to build wind farms unless they can make a buck or two.

It's really risky though because we had this issue in the 70s - oil went up.  Farmers started producing ethanol.  Then, oil went back down.  Ethanol was too expensive to produce, considering the price of gas so all the ethanol production ceased.

It sounds strange, but for us to get off of oil dependence we actually should want to price of gas to remain high.  Otherwise, none of these new technologies will come to fruition.

The price of oil is dictated by OPEC for the most part.  It is way higher than it needs to be, so I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the price right as alternative energy starts to look like a threat to them.  OPEC is of course against us getting off of our oil dependency.

Personally, I don't think it can be done with OPEC in the picture.

I had begun to wonder if OPEC is intentionally trying to destroy western economies' ability to transfer to cleaner alternative energy.  

Cleaning up existing fossil generation, building capacity to keep up with demand, replacing the oldest and most polluting power plants with new, revamping the grid with needed increases in transmission, all while the grid is made intelligent and renewables are banging on the door, is going to take this country to its breaking point, if oil creeps higher.  This is why the SPR is being expanded and why no sound energy policymaker is thinking of drawing from it for AE R&D.  

If I lead OPEC and didn't care about the environment or the United States' dependency on foreign oil, I would simply increase production every time an alternative energy company looks like it has a chance.  When that company falls under, drop production and the price goes back up.

When you look at our massive trade deficit, weakened dollar, Chinese peg to the dollar, and even worse budget deficit (Hey Democrats - you control Congress now so stop the FUC#$NG spending!!!) we are in deep trouble.  Throw in the energy issue and that could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.  

The one thing we can do NOW to halt the decline of the dollar is have a balanced budget.  Democrats can't pin all of this on Bush - they have had two years to stop the bleeding.  Instead the bleeding increases.  If we Democrats should be ashamed of anything, it is that.

do we have faith in this guy who helped fund the "SWVFT," the Swifties.  He admitted in an interview on Democracy Now that he will vote for John McCain.  He says he hasn't given any money to John McCain.  What about soft money groups?  It's too early to tell.  You have to wonder about the timing, though.  Is he trying to Green McCain's record, just earn big money and land grab for his projects, or is he sincere?  And, if so, is his proposal what's best, including the massive swath of land he wants, the DOE commitment, AND the switch to using natural gas in cars. Regarding natural gas for cars, he's got his priorities wrong.  Natural gas is better for home heating than fuel for cars.  And it doesn't do anything to reduce auto travel and dependency.  Also, he omits any consideration of all the wind energy lost due to transmission over long distances.  Also missing, sufficient emphasis on solar.

Didn't realize he funded the swift boat attacks.

He emphasizes solar, wind, and natural gas in his video.

of the price of oil.  There was once a time when the Saudis could use their 3 million barrels per day of excess capacity to dictate price (as they did when they smacked down Venezuela in the mid 90s).  But those days are gone.  

Well, they could do something though.  They could use all of that money in those Sovereign Wealth Funds to sell Oil futures on Nymex.  They could burst the bubble simply by their largess and push the pension funds and other investors out of their long positions.  But then they would be shooting themselves in the foot twice by losing money on those derivatives and then losing money on the crude too (since they would basically be doubling down).

OPEC can't control China's and India's growing demand.  China is already the number two importer behind us.  At their rate of growth, they will surpass us not too long from now.