As our own Alex Thurston is known to say of clean coal technology, “it’s a dirty rock. There’s no cleanlinees or technology involved.”

If only…

Brad Johnson, who put this great video together, has plenty of background.

Jerome a Paris’ Wind power set to decline under Obama? highlighted how the on-again, off-again federal renewable energy policies have created a boom-and-bust cycle, with 2009 looking to be perhaps a minor bust after 2008’s record-setting boom period. And, that this might occur despite the Administration and Congressional focus on renewable energy. And, despite our desperate need to get off polluting energy sources via energy efficiency and clean energy production as quickly as possible.

Yesterday, however, also say another important item: the wind industry now employes more American’s than the coal industry! Wind: 85,000 workers. Coal mining/extraction: 81,000 workers.

And, looking to the future, wind produces more jobs per kWh than coal while producing far (FAR) less environmental havoc.

Quote of the day:

I’ve talked to people who think we need a study. Study my ass.

No thanks, dude.

He also continued lying about Natural Gas, saying, “it’s ours”:

“You cannot get to the conclusion that we can reduce foreign oil in quantities that are meaningful without using natural gas,” he said, adding that natural gas is cheaper and more abundant than oil – “and it’s ours.”

This is just not the case. In the last 20 years, natural gas imports have quadrupled while production has remained relatively flat. I’d be very curious to learn how Pickens reconciles the claim that “it’s ours” with this chart of global natural gas reserves.

Fact is, he can’t.

I wanted to provide a tiny bit more background on my piece earlier today. The PBS documentary HEAT, which I wrote about previously in a different context, has a great four minute clip on this.

This statement from Terry Tamminen, an advisor to Gov. Schwarzenegger, provides insight into how the auto industry views California:

They love that we’re the biggest car market on earth. They hate that we try to regulate what comes out of their tailpipes.

I have good news and bad news. First, the good news. President Obama has ordered the EPA to revisit the denial of the California waiver. Basically, this means that states will now be allowed to set their own standards for automobile tailpipe emissions. States like California and New York, which wanted to enact higher standards than the federal regulations, have been handicapped by the Bush administration for years. With this announcement, that is set to change.

Now the bad news. Some Republicans are throwing a fit, whining about the nature of Federalism and providing misleading information about the cost to automakers. Over at Room for Debate, Jerry Taylor, a Senior Fellow at Cato, almost blew a gasket on Monday, eventually concluding:

States have the right to act. But their reach should end where another state’s nose begins

Is he seriously arguing that it is the proper role of the Federal government to block a popular state policy which would decrease oil imports and improve air quality? Is that how the EPA should be spending its time? Is he also really comparing requiring more efficient vehicles to a punch in the face?

Taylor huffs and puffs:

Why does California get to dictate the nature of the auto fleet for the rest of us?

Around the end of December, the American Consumer Institute, which appears to be a fly-by-night anti-regulation group, posted a poll about The Pickens Plan on their website.

The official Pickens Plan account at the Ning Social Network page immediately posted a link to the poll, practically begging the (175,000+) members of the group to show their support by voting.

The American Consumer Institute is hosting a poll asking the public if they support Pickens Plan.

This is an excellent opportunity to show that we do!

Please take a moment and participate in the poll. You can add your vote by clicking here.

Thank you!

Three weeks later, when the results came in, there weren’t many surprises:

Over the last couple of weeks, we asked our readers whether they supported the Pickens Plan to achieve energy independence. And, here are the final results:

* 95% YES (902 votes)
* <1% NO (8 votes)
* 4% Partially Support (34 votes)
* <1% Undecided (2 votes)

Based on these results, our readers overwhelmingly support the Pickens Plan.

Imagine that. Not to be outdone, the flacks at the Pickens blog followed up immediately with American Consumers’ Support for the Pickens Plan: Overwhelming!:

The organization “The American Consumer” did a survey to test support for the Pickens Plan. According to its website, 95% of those responding said they supported the Pickens plan in full.

Another four percent support portions of the Pickens plan.

Just one percent of those responding disagreed with the Pickens Plan or were undecided

This is intentionally misleading. Pickens has a bad habit of intentionally misleading people about the nature of his plan. Here are a few examples:

Encouraging new data (pdf) from the Federal Highway Administration:

Travel on all roads and streets changed by -5.3% (-12.9 billion vehicle miles) for November 2008 as compared with November 2007. Travel for the month is estimated to be 230.4 billion vehicle miles.

This is the type of trend I like to see:

Mark Perry explains:

The thirteen consecutive monthly declines (November 2007 through November 2008) in miles driven compared to the same month in the previous year represents one of the most significant adjustments to driving behavior in American history.

Unfortunately, the house stimulus draft floating around seems likely to reverse this trend:

Under the current proposal, new construction could consume three times as much funding as public transportation. The environmental groups hope more public transit money will be added when lawmakers make changes to the proposal in committee, an amendment process which began Wednesday afternoon.

“At a time of erratic energy prices, Congress should use this opportunity to move America away from highways and toward railways and mass transit,” said Karen Wayland, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. “The transportation component of the stimulus package underfunds mass transit in deference to highways and bridges.”

Consumption of natural gas in the united states has remained relatively stable for the past 35 years.

But natural gas imports in the United States have more than quadrupled in the past 20 years.

And the price we pay for imported natural gas has more than tripled in the past 15 years.

This probably has something to do with the fact that production of Natural Gas in the United States peaked about 35 years ago, in 1973.

Recent enthusiasm for natural gas is due in large part to drastically increased shale gas production, particularly in the Barnett Shale. But the production process for shale gas, which includes fracturing the shale rock with water mixed with toxic metals and chemicals, is already polluting drinking water for hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Russia, Iran and Qatar have about 55% of the world’s known natural gas reserves. They are planning to create a cartel for natural gas, much like OPEC. Russia has already shown how far they are willing to go to manipulate prices. Natural gas proponents in the United States like to point to the fact that natural gas is, for the most part, not a fungible commodity. This is true because compressed natural gas is very difficult and expensive to transport, especially over long distances. But this is only true for compressed natural gas. The rapidly growing market for liquified natural gas, which can be transported relatively inexpensively, changes the equation quite a bit.

This is a dangerous path we are heading down. We have been increasing natural gas imports and expenditures at a healthy clip for the past several decades, while domestic production has struggled to remain flat. Industry points to new domestic production potential, but the potential costs include access to clean drinking water for millions of Americans in the surrounding areas. Meanwhile, a handful of countries control a majority of the world’s reserves, and are planning to organize a cartel to manipulate prices. Their ability to do so is likely to increase in the coming years, due to market realities (increasing fungibility).

While replacing coal-fired power plants and drastically reducing oil consumption remain the two key components of transitioning to a sustainable energy policy, those who are interested in long-term solutions must look beyond natural gas as well. Yes, natural gas will play some role as a “bridge fuel”. It is clear that we will continue to use it in power generation for years and years to come. And I’ll grudgingly admit, the percentage of vehicles running on natural gas will almost certainly go up before it goes down. But we should be very cautious and smart about how we produce our natural gas, how quickly we use our reserves, and how we can use them most effectively. Above all we must begin thinking about how we will prevent the global power dynamics behind the oil trade from being replicated with yet another finite fossil fuel. I’m sure even T. Boone Pickens would agree with that.

Supporters of T. Boone Pickens keep telling me that he has modified his plan, that he has given up on the idea of converting all cars to natural gas. They tell me that he has wised up, and is willing to shift his focus on natural gas entirely to semi trucks and other large vehicles. This is not the case.

Consider this morning’s Austin-American Statesman article on Pickens (emphasis mine):

Pickens used the opportunity to promote his plan for using wind power to generate electricity, replacing natural gas that now generates more than 20 percent of the country’s electrical power.

Natural gas, he said, should be used instead to fuel cars and trucks, which would, he contends, slash the nation’s dependence on foreign oil by more than a third.

Or consider his new TV advertisement, which clearly shows a natural gas vehicle while touting the jobs his plan could create.

Or you could consider the plan itself, which prominently displays a picture of a natural gas vehicle.

Finally, if you still aren’t convinced, read the man’s book, The First Billion is the Hardest. If you do so, please consider checking it out from the library. In his book he makes it perfectly clear that regardless of political and financial setbacks, he will not give up until a majority of the vehicles in the United States are fueled by natural gas. He may be willing to pivot to a trucks only approach temporarily for political purposes, but he will never give up on his fatally flawed idea.