The Pickens Plan: More or Less Ambitious than mass nukes?

Okay, Wind farms through that corridor.  Groovy.  That is a corridor that badly needs some economic development anyway.  But if his plan is dependent on having the right amount of leadership and everybody marching in the same direction… doesn’t that pretty much mean it’s screwed from the get-go?

Could the same thing be achieved with improved nuclear capacity within the same ten-year timeframe, given political will?

Leave a comment


  1. His new thing seems like a lot of political will and expenditure for not nearly enough juice. The same amount invested in nukes would not only give us enough for today (unlike his plan), but enough for WAAAY down the road.

  2. Alex

     /  July 15, 2008

    If you want to really create political will for something of either flavor (wind or nukes) look at the economics of job creation for both and that’s where such a vision will become reality or will fail.
    Nuclear power (as I see it) creates a lot of short term jobs to build the plants, and then a few longer term jobs to staff the plants. Wind power, creates a lot of short term jobs to build the turbines and fan blades, and keeps more jobs in place to maintain them since you need more of them to generate as much power as one nuclear plant.
    So if Mr. Pickens decides to just go on his own and plant jobs and wind turbines in his wake like Johnny Appleseed, he’ll get plenty of political support as he goes.

  3. Pickens Plan Public Discussion Forum :

  4. Happycrow

     /  July 15, 2008

    Hrm…. sounds to me like you’re both right…

  5. Mike

     /  July 15, 2008

    Hell, let’s do both. I like the fact that the guys who really benefit from this are the Great Plains (mostly), and we can then tell the coasts to pound sand in regards to environmental issues and power.

    “You want clean power? Then tell Kennedy to shut up and get with it you non-earth loving punk.”

    For the east and west coasts, nukes really are the only hope. You will get some juice from seabreeze, but enough to power Boston? NEW YORK? Not enough wind in the world for that, even counting the hot air genereated by the local population.

  6. celogo

     /  July 15, 2008

    What Mike said… ‘specially the last 2 paragraphs 🙂

  7. convivialdingo

     /  July 15, 2008

    You could setup wind turbines above the capitol building!!

    There’s hardly such thing as political will anyway. They’re going to pluck down wind power as long as it makes money – which it does.

  8. Happycrow

     /  July 16, 2008

    “If you loved the earth, you’d get with market forces for wind power!”


  9. Mike

     /  July 16, 2008

    Like my just ordered T Shirt says “Capitalists of the World Unite!”

  10. Happycrow

     /  July 17, 2008

    You do, indeed, have nothing to lose but your chains…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

  • Featured Eyeballs

  • What’s today again?

    July 2008
    M T W T F S S
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 133,067 hits
  • Recent Comments

    Cults and Context |… on So, about that Bruce Jenner…
    Cults and Context |… on Yes, I AM, in fact, looking at…
    Cults and Context |… on How The Internet Says “D…
    Kat Laurange on Hungarian Military Sabre …
    Kat Laurange on Rose Garden! The Home Edi…
  • Advertisements
    %d bloggers like this: