Yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial by Holman Jenkins unequivocally voiced nearly-identical sentiments to my own regarding some of Boone Pickens' remarks about US energy and trade policy.
Echoing my own position, as expressed in this post from February of this year, Jenkins calls into question Pickens' outrage that America spends some $700B per year for foreign-produced oil.
He characterizes the purchases as a fair exchange of value for value. Then lampoons Pickens by asking if he would be similarly exorcised to learn that the US also accounted for 23% of worldwide advertising purchases?
Going beyond my economically-based criticism of Pickens' hand-wringing over foreign oil, Jenkins then finds justifiable fault with the description of Pickens' effort as a 'plan.'
He's right. I have, in the past few weeks, heard several people question the viability of a LNG car. No less a car salesman than Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation, pointed out that such a car 'has no trunk,' and can't be driven anywhere, anytime. It is pretty much restricted to being a short-distance commuting car.
Further, I've read some reports that the vaunted wind power on which Pickens hangs so much of his 'plan' is not quite as efficient as is claimed. Allegedly, California wind farms generate only about 20% of their rated power.
Finally, as I wrote in this post early in June, why doesn't Pickens mention coal and synfuels?
The US is as rich in coal as it is in wind. And we know that coal can be gassified to become liquid hydrocarbons at no more than $5/gallon. Probably substantially less than $4/gallon if properly incented by Federal pricing and volume guarantees.
Such a fuel would require no new vehicle designs, distribution systems, nor diversion of natural gas from its use to generate electricity in the US.
I'm very pleased to see I am not alone in seeing some gaping holes in Pickens' energy 'plan' for America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment