T. Boone Pickens: Let’s transform energy — with natural gas

I’m a believer. I’m a believer in global warming, and my record is good on the subject. But my subject is national security. We have to get off of oil purchased from the enemy. I’m talking about OPEC oil. And let me take you back 100 years to 1912. You’re probably thinking that was my birth year. (Laughter) It wasn’t. It was 1928. But go back to 1912, 100 years ago, and look at that point what we, our country, was faced with. It’s the same energy question that you’re looking at today, but it’s different sources of fuel. A hundred years ago we were looking at coal, of course, and we were looking at whale oil and we were looking at crude oil. At that point, we were looking for a fuel that was cleaner, it was cheaper, and it wasn’t ours though, it was theirs. So at that point, 1912, we selected crude oil over whale oil and some more coal. But as we moved on to the period now, 100 years later, we’re back really at another decision point. What is the decision point? It’s what we’re going to use in the future. So from here, it’s pretty clear to me, we would prefer to have cleaner, cheaper, domestic, ours — and we have that, we have that — which is natural gas. So here you are, that the cost of all this to the world is 89 million barrels of oil, give or take a few barrels, every day. And the cost annually is three trillion dollars. And one trillion of that goes to OPEC. That has got to be stopped. Now if you look at the cost of OPEC, it cost seven trillion dollars — on the Milken Institute study last year — seven trillion dollars since 1976, is what we paid for oil from OPEC. Now that includes the cost of military and the cost of the fuel both. But it’s the greatest transfer of wealth, from one group to another in the history of mankind. And it continues. Now when you look at where is the transfer of wealth, you can see here that we have the arrows going into the Mid-East and away from us. And with that, we have found ourselves to be the world’s policemen. We are policing the world, and how are we doing that? I know the response to this. I would bet there aren’t 10 percent of you in the room that know how many aircraft carriers there are in the world. Raise your hand if you think you know. There are 12. One is under construction by the Chinese and the other 11 belong to us. Why do we have 11 aircraft carriers? Do we have a corner on the market? Are we smarter than anybody else? I’m not sure. If you look at where they’re located — and on this slide it’s the red blobs on there — there are five that are operating in the Mid-East, and the rest of them are in the United States. They just move back to the Mid-East and those come back. So actually most of the 11 we have are tied up in the Mid-East. Why? Why are they in the Mid-East? They’re there to control, keep the shipping lanes open and make oil available. And the United States uses about 20 million barrels a day, which is about 25 percent of all the oil used everyday in the world. And we’re doing it with four percent of the population. Somehow that doesn’t seem right. That’s not sustainable. So where do we go from here? Does that continue? Yes, it’s going to continue. The slide you’re looking at here is 1990 to 2040. Over that period you are going to double your demand. And when you look at what we’re using the oil for, 70 percent of it is used for transportation fuel. So when somebody says, “Let’s go more nuclear, let’s go wind, let’s go solar,” fine; I’m for anything American, anything American. But if you’re going to do anything about the dependency on foreign oil, you have to address transportation. So here we are using 20 million barrels a day — producing eight, importing 12, and from the 12, five comes from OPEC. When you look at the biggest user and the second largest user, we use 20 million barrels and the Chinese use 10. The Chinese have a little bit better plan — or they have a plan; we have no plan. In the history of America, we’ve never had an energy plan. We don’t even realize the resources that we have available to us. If you take the last 10 years and bring forward, you’ve transferred to OPEC a trillion dollars. If you go forward the next 10 years and cap the price of oil at 100 dollars a barrel, you will pay 2.2 trillion. That’s not sustainable either. But the days of cheap oil are over. They’re over. They make it very clear to you, the Saudis do, they have to have 94 dollars a barrel to make their social commitments. Now I had people in Washington last week told me, he said, “The Saudis can produce the oil for five dollars a barrel. That has nothing to do with it. It’s what they have to pay for is what we are going to pay for oil.” There is no free market for oil. The oil is priced off the margin. And the OPEC nations are the ones that price the oil. So where are we headed from here? We’re headed to natural gas. Natural gas will do everything we want it to do. It’s 130 octane fuel. It’s 25 percent cleaner than oil. It’s ours, we have an abundance of it. And it does not require a refinery. It comes out of the ground at 130 octane. Run it through the separator and you’re ready to use it. It’s going to be very simple for us to use. It’s going to be simple to accomplish this. You’re going to find, and I’ll tell you in just a minute, what you’re looking for to make it happen. But here you can look at the list. Natural gas will fit all of those. It will replace or be able to be used for that. It’s for power generation, transportation, it’s peaking fuel, it’s all those. Do we have enough natural gas? Look at the bar on the left. It’s 24 trillion. It’s what we use a year. Go forward and the estimates that you have from the EIA and onto the industry estimates — the industry knows what they’re talking about — we’ve got 4,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that’s available to us. How does that translate to barrels of oil equivalent? It would be three times what the Saudis claim they have. And they claim they have 250 billion barrels of oil, which I do not believe. I think it’s probably 175 billion barrels. But anyway, whether they say they’re right or whatever, we have plenty of natural gas. So I have tried to target on where we use the natural gas. And where I’ve targeted is on the heavy-duty trucks. There are eight million of them. You take eight million trucks — these are 18-wheelers — and take them to natural gas, reduce carbon by 30 percent, it is cheaper and it will cut our imports three million barrels. So you will cut 60 percent off of OPEC with eight million trucks. There are 250 million vehicles in America. So what you have is natural gas is the bridge fuel, is the way I see it. I don’t have to worry about the bridge to where at my age. (Laughter) That’s your concern. But when you look at the natural gas we have it could very well be the bridge to natural gas, because you have plenty of natural gas. But as I said, I’m for anything American. Now let me take you — I’ve been a realist — I went from theorist early to realist. I’m back to theorist again. If you look at the world, you have methane hydrates in the ocean around every continent. And here you can see methane, if that’s the way you’re going to go, that there’s plenty of methane — natural gas is methane, methane and natural gas are interchangeable — but if you decide that you’re going to use some methane — and I’m gone, so it’s up to you — but we do have plenty of methane hydrates. So I think I’ve made my point that we have to get on our own resources in America. If we do — it’s costing us a billion dollars a day for oil. And yet, we have no energy plan. So there’s nothing going on that impresses me in Washington on that plan, other than I’m trying to focus on that eight million 18-wheelers. If we could do that, I think we would take our first step to an energy plan. If we did, we could see that our own resources are easier to use than anybody can imagine. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson: Thanks for that. So from your point of view, you had this great Pickens Plan that was based on wind energy, and you abandoned it basically because the economics changed. What happened? TBP: I lost 150 million dollars. (Laughter) That’ll make you abandon something. No, what happened to us, Chris, is that power, it’s priced off the margin. And so the margin is natural gas. And at the time I went into the wind business, natural gas was nine dollars. Today it’s two dollars and forty cents. You cannot do a wind deal under six dollars an MCF. CA: So what happened was that, through increased ability to use fracking technology, the calculated reserves of natural gas kind of exploded and the price plummeted, which made wind uncompetitive. In a nutshell that’s what happened? TBP: That’s what happened. We found out that we could go to the source rock, which were the carboniferous shales in the basins. The first one was Barnett Shale in Texas and then the Marcellus up in the Northeast across New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia; and Haynesville in Louisiana. This stuff is everywhere. We are overwhelmed with natural gas. CA: And now you’re a big investor in that and bringing that to market? TBP: Well you say a big investor. It’s my life. I’m a geologist, got out of school in ’51, and I’ve been in the industry my entire life. Now I do own stocks. I’m not a big natural gas producer. Somebody the other day said I was the second largest natural gas producer in the United States. Don’t I wish. But no, I’m not. I own stocks. But I also am in the fueling business. CA: But natural gas is a fossil fuel. You burn it, you release CO2. So you believe in the threat of climate change. Why doesn’t that prospect concern you? TBP: Well you’re going to have to use something. What do you have to replace it? (Laughter) CA: No, no. The argument that it’s a bridge fuel makes sense, because the amount of CO2 per unit of energy is lower than oil and coal, correct? And so everyone can be at least happy to see a shift from coal or oil to natural gas. But if that’s it and that becomes the reason that renewables don’t get invested in, then, long-term, we’re screwed anyway, right? TBP: Well I’m not ready to give up, but Jim and I talked there as he left, and I said, “How do you feel about natural gas?” And he said, “Well it’s a bridge fuel, is what it is.” And I said, “Bridge to what? Where are we headed?” See but again, I told you, I don’t have to worry with that. You all do. CA: But I don’t think that’s right, Boone. I think you’re a person who believes in your legacy. You’ve made the money you need. You’re one of the few people in a position to really swing the debate. Do you support the idea of some kind of price on carbon? Does that make sense? TBP: I don’t like that because it ends up the government is going to run the program. I can tell you it will be a failure. The government is not successful on these things. They just aren’t, it’s a bad deal. Look at Solyndra, or whatever it was. I mean, that was told to be a bad idea 10 times, they went ahead and did it anyway. But that only blew out 500 million. I think it’s closer to a billion. But Chris, I think where we’re headed, the long-term, I don’t mind going back to nuclear. And I can tell you what the last page of the report that will take them five years to write will be. One, don’t build a reformer on a fault. (Laughter) And number two, do not build a reformer on the ocean. And now I think reformers are safe. Move them inland and on very stable ground and build the reformers. There isn’t anything wrong with nuke. You’re going to have to have energy. There is no question. You can’t — okay. CA: One of the questions from the audience is, with fracking and the natural gas process, what about the problem of methane leaking from that, methane being a worse global warming gas than CO2? Is that a concern? TBP: Fracking? What is fracking? CA: Fracking. TBP: I’m teasing. (Laughter) CA: We’ve got a little bit of accent incompatibility here, you know. TBP: No, let me tell you, I’ve told you what my age was. I got out of school in ’51. I witnessed my first frack job at border Texas in 1953. Fracking came out in ’47, and don’t believe for a minute when our president gets up there and says the Department of Energy 30 years ago developed fracking. I don’t know what in the hell he’s talking about. I mean seriously, the Department of Energy did not have anything to do with fracking. The first frack job was in ’47. I saw my first one in ’53. I’ve fracked over 3,000 wells in my life. Never had a problem with messing up an aquifer or anything else. Now the largest aquifer in North America is from Midland, Texas to the South Dakota border, across eight states — big aquifer: Ogallala, Triassic age. There had to have been 800,000 wells fracked in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas in that aquifer. There’s no problems. I don’t understand why the media is focused on Eastern Pennsylvania. CA: All right, so you don’t support a carbon tax of any kind or a price on carbon. Your picture then I guess of how the world eventually gets off fossil fuels is through innovation ultimately, that we’ll someday make solar and nuclear cost competitive? TBP: Solar and wind, Jim and I agreed on that in 13 seconds. That is, it’s going to be a small part, because you can’t rely on it. CA: So how does the world get off fossil fuels? TBP: How do we get there? We have so much natural gas, a day will not come where you say, “Well let’s don’t use that anymore.” You’ll keep using it. It is the cleanest of all. And if you look at California, they use 2,500 buses. LAMTA have been on natural gas for 25 years. The Ft. Worth T has been on it for 25 years. Why? Air quality was the reason they used natural gas and got away from diesel. Why are all the trash trucks today in Southern California on natural gas? It’s because of air quality. I know what you’re telling me, and I’m not disagreeing with you. How in the hell can we get off the natural gas at some point? And I say, that is your problem. (Laughter) CA: All right, so it’s the bridge fuel. What is at the other end of that bridge is for this audience to figure out. If someone comes to you with a plan that really looks like it might be part of this solution, are you ready to invest in those technologies, even if they aren’t maximized for profits, they might be maximized for the future health of the planet? TBP: I lost 150 million on the wind, okay. Yeah, sure, I’m game for it. Because, again, I’m trying to get energy solved for America. And anything American will work for me. CA: Boone, I really, really appreciate you coming here, engaging in this conversation. I think there’s a lot of people who will want to engage with you. And that was a real gift you gave this audience. Thank you so much. (TBP: You bet, Chris. Thank you.) (Applause)


  1. I wouldn't suggest only nuclear power plants, nor would I suggest putting them everywhere. They should be viewed as being as geographically limited if not more so, than hydro and geothermal. T.Boone himself stated quite simply that they shouldn't be built on areas prone to earthquakes, and I would add any kind of large scale natural disaster; hurricanes, tornadoes, maybe even floods.

  2. Creating an unnecessary dependence on natural gas will have our drinkable water supply negated faster than you may think. With bottling companies heading out of North America to find cheap water we will hit oil-like prices on water with its own set pf problems with petrochemical produced containers and the contents then make their way into our bodies…. Electric vehicles have been proven over and over since the early 1900's. Cost does not matter when our current civilization faces extinction.

  3. Not to mention electricity can be produced on a user-scale basis. Which means with some know-how, a household can easily produce all power needed to heat, light, and run a homes functions, while providing the power for the average vehicular needs. You can't snap your fingers for this change, but disseminating information to lead the average person from a system to another system that kills us is morally reprehensible. *dislike. Also have a very different opinion of Mr. Pickets…

  4. Silly Yankees!
    T-Bone is a corporate raider from 'way back.
    Never did a honest day's work in his life.
    Now he's buying up your Hoosier water rights and you're fool enough to sell them.
    Frack you!

  5. Seems there's a lot of guys like you who didn't even watch the video.

    Nuclear won't solve the primary energy issue in America, which is transport fuel, the largest chunk of which is trucks.

    You could have 100% renewable electricity and that won't do shit about the fact you're burning up gas with trucks and cars.

  6. Wikipedia says there are currently 21 active aircraft carriers. It looks accurate.

    Is there something I'm not understanding?

    The main point is that we bear a disproportionate military cost, which is true, but bad facts take away from the argument.

  7. I stopped watching this talk at 0:45 when he said "we need to buy…from our enemies…" this guy doesn't belong to TED spirit.
    oh yeah, and I said "fuck you!" while I was closing the browser tab.

  8. You confuse city government with Cleveland residents. The two are quite different and have different interests. The idea that "we are the government" is silly on its face. And if you have no other choice but to buy from the govt power utility, then it is a monopoly. In a competitive market, profit margins are almost always lower than the waste and inefficiency that you get with a govt run program, or any monopoly. You are just a cheerleader for state control.

  9. I took it to mean that he just wanted something produced domestically, not that those things were especially 'American', necessarily.

  10. Ah, I see. That makes sense. I'd've still preferred it if he had said something less ambiguous though. Does the TED audience not extend that much outside the US?

  11. The reason why it happens the way it does now is because American politicians are controlled by a wealthy elite. This elite want to change as little as possible, because any change could lead to a shift in wealth – and thus a shift of power.
    This elite few is the same group that funds anti-global warming propaganda and funds radical groups in oil-rich countries to destabilize the country. They represent everything that is wrong with the world today.
    I think this speaker realizes that.

  12. "That's your problem." What an ass. We are supposed to cry over his loss of $150M (which still leaves him incredibly wealthy) while he rakes in profits making the problem worse for us. The moderator at the end certainly pointed out Picken's arogance but TED should never have given the podium to a 1%er like this who offers no real solutions, only illusions.

  13. Everyone downing ted talks surely didn't watch the entire video. Chris Anderson came out and drilled him with questions and skepticism about natural gas. go to 11:30

  14. Everyone bitching about TED having T. Boone Pickens speak is a moron and an idiot. TED is about exploring and sharing ideas with the world. Anyone's ideas, not YOUR ideas. Stop whining and acting like some high school kid arguing your parent's views.

  15. I'm sure there are more aircraft carriers in the world than that. Especially if you include any under construction. The UK are getting two, for example.

  16. When there is only one provider of a service, you have a monopoly. Govt taking over energy in an area fits the definition. I advocate being able to chose from a half-dozen orgs, some of which might be non-profit. I'd say you are being the pawn of the pro-government politicians. If Cleveland subsidized power from sales or real estate taxes, then perhaps they were NOT being efficient.

  17. No, I did not say that profit margins were less than zero, I said that they were almost always lower than the reduced efficiency you tend to get with a monopoly, and especially with a govt monopoly. Overall, corporate profits are about 7% of total revenue. But a relatively efficient govt bureaucracy loses around 30%. You tend to pay less in a true, competitive market than you do with a govt or private monopoly. Power lines can be shared.

  18. In Mumbai & Delhi all public transport (buses & taxis) use CNG (compressed natural gas). The conversion of petrol engines to CNG is cheap – the problem is distribution – once there are enough stations distributing CNG the popularity will increase and even private cars will shift to CNG.

  19. Yea, this guy is a fraud. Natural gas isnt even an option until they find a better way to get it out of the ground. Hydrolic Fracturing is enviornmental terrorism.

  20. yes, but that is a long way to go. nat gas prices are like low right now. When do you think the u.s will export the stuff?

  21. If you havent noticed yet, corporations own our country. The energy policy signed into law by president George W. Bush in 2005 exempts all energy companies (like Halliburton, coincidentally owned by Vice President Dick hole Cheney) from complying with the Clean Water Act. Hydrolic Fracturing contaminates drinking water for thousands of people across the United States by drilling next to under ground wells. Watch the documentary "Gas Land" it talks all about it, pretty compelling.

  22. Why must it export – first use domestically and achieve more energy security, and reduce foreign debt (apart from the fact that it is a cleaner fuel when compared to petrol).
    This was also the aim in India which imports 70% of its petrol requirement at great costs to the economy.

  23. because the u.s has lots of supply and nat gas prices are depressed there. many producers fail to make profit

  24. Not only is that reply extremely vague, it's completely untrue. The current production processes, and many of the materials used in electrical supplies are inefficient. Recent trials on many electric vehicles have had high price tags due to inadequate, yet high priced, engineering. Electrical delivery (not production) has high price tags, because generation of said electricity has been handed over to a handful of corporations looking to profit *surprise*. The infrastructure is flawed.

  25. so when it comes down to it, it still isn't as efficient as fuel. why do you sound so stubborn in your comment.

  26. The newer fracking chemicals are now enviromentally friendly. One such company producing this is Flotek. There may be more.
    ABS materials also make a fantastic water cleaner called Osorb worth checking out.
    Hopefully the days of polluting fracking chemicals are long gone..

  27. How do you know they are safer? The Clean Water Act requires companies to disclose such information to the EPA, but since these companies are exempt that basically gives them free reign to lie through their teeth without consequences. Until they are forced to disclose the chemicals they usein fracking, no one is safe.

  28. Please watch "There's no Tomorrow" by post carbon institute. If you still think growth is possible then we will have something to discuss.

  29. Instead of watching a ridiculous video (I don't have time for that, but I know what it is about, eco-hysteria) I am going to explain to you why the definition of growth mean that it is good. Economic growth means doing more with less. For instance, lower emissions, less energy usage but more stuff.

    Tell me how that is bad.

    Also, please actually learn something about the subject. The only reason you can say growth is bad is if you don't know what it is.

  30. Your last statement just jumped off the reality wagon. If you had watch the video you would have learned some facts, some math, and some science that would have educated you on the subject. Perpetual growth is dogmatic. Technology is not energy. Once all the rich energy dence fuel are gone growth will end. The truth is that oil has all ready peaked and growth is slowing down globally. Humanities population is directly connected to that energy supply. As we go down the bell curve…

  31. I'm a double major, engineering and economics, I know math and I know this subject. I know what the video is about and where it is from, and can dismiss it off-hand.

    Frankly I'm borde with you uneducated crazed lunatics. You don't even understand the definition of growth.

    Once? We have nuclear power for thousands of years with Thorium reactors. We're pretty set for life.

    And no matter, we could use solar and wind, and have all the growth go towards higher energy costs.

  32. you a damn moron we'll find a new planet or build a new one it is gon go on forever cuz THAT is the natural thing where the fuck they find you jokeass lil psychos

  33. eyway this bois a oklahoman oilman he know damn well we produce 51% of our own oil an we get the rest from canada wit about 10% from dozens of other sources opec aint got shit todo wit us no more
    jus another billionaire what lost his roots an soul he still know how todo business even tho even theym lose they drive start jumpin on the activist type shit

  34. whos this limeyass cocksucka talkin bout climate change bullshit he gon go on tryna get him to say some stupid shit carbon tax hahahahahahaha america gon NEVER see onea them maybe thats for damn sure. also maybe i was a lil hasty on pickens b4 talkin shit when i aint fully watchd the video but i still see heem bein corrupted by them rich peoples and their pot stirrin trouble brewin shit bout this manmade climate shit an him manipulatin the statistics tho maybe he do that cuz crowd is foreigners?

  35. Watch the documentary "Gasworld" to see the efects of the fracking tecnology for geting that "unlimited" natural gas. People like this guy should be in jail.. they only care for their stocks and to get some profits no matter what they have to do.

  36. I find it disappointing that he began his speech by attempting to make us think he cares about humanity. He's a "believer" of global warming, but he's not willing to do any thing about it. He's in it for the money. Period. And he made this clear throughout the rest of the presentation. Especially the multiple times that he states, "that's your problem," or some variation. He contradicts himself.

  37. I actually felt the opposite was true. I'm surprised T. Boone was willing to stand there and allow Chris Anderson to question him on these issues, when it's so blatantly obvious that his goal with natural gas is to make a ton of money, and he cares nothing about the environment — particularly in front of this audience, which I bet could easily see right through him.

  38. When I first read your comment, I thought to myself, "who's this idiot posting unreadable, immature garbage???" But then I decided to stop judging and try reading it again. Then I said to myself, "hmm, this guy (or girl) is actually pretty smart." If you typed in complete sentences with decent punctuation, and worded your comments more clearly, I think you could be pretty influential. And reading your posts wouldn't be such a chore. You'll reach more people! Good luck.


  40. Whatever we use for energy it will get more expensive to build and environmentally, LFTR green nukes, natural gas power plants, cheap oil is gone, wake up america! One trillion to OPEC every year is not sustainable. Haynesville Shale is 200 ft thick, why are we doing the Bakken and 3 forks that are only a few feet think? Why are we putting up old 2nd generation windmills and nuke plants..much better designs are available?

  41. @jayangli : I would offer that I'm extremely frustrated with "authorities" on energy that are viewed as such due to monetary success or business acumen. They overlook many of the real problems our entire planet is facing and look towards change with fiscal viability in mind. For example, the only thing keeping everybody from driving self-generating electric vehicles that are 100% recyclable is the time required to build them. Currently this time makes them prohibitively expensive. It shouldn't

  42. (Part 2) When faced with the moral dilemma of making millions of people sick and continuing the processes that indicate the eventual inability of our planet. The word "stubborn" really doesn't apply.

  43. France, the UK and Russia operate aircraft carriers, Brazil used to as well. China and India are both pursuing aircraft carriers. They are about 2/3rds the size of a Nimitz class but they are still aircraft carriers. The U.S. operates more then double what the rest of the world operates but what he said was wrong….. very small point but it bothered me

  44. I've read somewhere that high tech modern steam engines (fired by whatever fuel source you want) are capable of producing immense amounts of power at high efficiency levels.

  45. All these people calling this guy a crook and complain about fracking should pull your head out of your ass. You think were in some conspiracy land where no one wants clean energy. Of course this guy owns stock in his own natural gas company, and it will rise if the US Govt legislates Natural Gas policy. What do you expect him to do…not own stock in something he believes in? He wants to make a change in what he thinks is at least a cleaner bridge to 100% clean energy and he's 84 years old

  46. It generates approximately %50 less emissions, if I recall correctly. However, it also generates far less energy, which is why we still burn so much coal. It's simply too cheap to ignore.

  47. Lol . . . most power we generate is done via steam turbine if there is a heat source as the "fuel." Nuclear power plants are efficient because the nuclear material generates heat nicely, which is used to vaporize water and spin turbines with the steam produced.

    What did you think we do to generate electricity?

  48. co2 causing climate change is one of the biggest fraud ever.. and I am happy looking forward to cooler climate at the end of the decade because of lower sun activity.

    Did anyone here actually watch the 2 hour testimony by four professors in the canadian senate prior to leaving the Kyoto Protocoll? I bet not cause most people here are just a bunch of self entitled pricks: P
    "Canadian Senate Climate Science and Economics Hearing" on youtube

  49. Not sure why there are so many dislikes… the talk was really just getting the point across that we have a source of cleaner (not clean, but cleaner) energy which will sustain us for a while. So really, we don't need to panic so much as we make these leaps and bounds into alternative energy. That's it… no need to dissect it any further.

  50. The problem is, which most people don't realize and he neglects to mention is that most if not all our natural gas comes from the same process as getting oil. The only difference is we skim the natural gas off or near the pockets of crude oil and collect it. If we are going through all the trouble to get natural gas why don't we collect the oil too? So we are right back into the same problem. Don't even skip the can down the street, it's kicking it and it doesn't go anywhere.

  51. There really are no solutions until we get rid of the monetary system and have a scientifically literate populace. The organizations and companies that continue to fuck up and destroy our planet have one main focus–profit, an excess of money.
    You know how your body works? There has to be a "profit" of nutrients in your body; if you don't you die!
    Take this principle and apply it to the social system. PEOPLE is what makes things run NOT paper/electronic stuff we call money.

  52. The reason natural gas is not getting traction in Washington is probably becasue T Boone is a lying b*st*rd. We know that because he was behind the Swiftboat Ad lies about John Kerry. He was on Morning Joe this morning whining that he has been going around Wash DC promulgating the great benefits of natural gas for five years and was getting absolutely nowhere with congress – they have passed no legislation. Hey, T, no one believes you because you're a liar.

  53. On Morning Joe, TWICE he repeated a couple of lies he's been telling about what he has been going through in DC, as in, -here's what I said then but now here is the actual truth-.
    Wall Street is smart enough to donate to Democratic campaigns even though its the GOP that carries their water. But T Boone pays to create the Swiftboat Ads that openly lies about Kerry and then is astonished when he subsequently gets nowhere in Washington. No one in DC will work with him.

  54. He says, (I paraphrase) "No one has worked with me except for, very surprisingly, John Kerry." Well, we know why he is surprised, right.?
    Kerry says "SURE I'll work with you on this, T Boone, I'm going to let bygones be bygones.
    Kerry agreed to work with Mr. T so he could Swiftboat Mr T's plan from the inside. Five years later and Mr. T's scratching his head.
    T Boone's too stupid to see what's going on.

  55. We're not talking about Kerry, we're talking about the everyday lying Mr T. who's paid for Republicans are doing everything they can to discredit solar power which will up end the entire energy industry. Super efficient panels heating and lighting our houses and powering our autos.
    Solyntra failed = solar panels will fail = Republicans are stupid.
    If Mr T was born 100 years earlier he would be telling us to invest in his whale oil business.

  56. I was talking about Mr T when I mentioned Kerry. Your're the one who offered to make Kerry the subject.
    Solar panels are getting more efficient and cheaper to make all the time. Nanotechnology will make solar extremely efficicient and cheap to make as long as we can stop Big Oil from paying Republicans to undercut their development.

  57. I run 2 cars on CNG Bi-Fuel a 2002 A6 twin turbo and a 2000 Nissan Extara CNG Bi-Fuel 6 cylinder.Update my Home fueling pump and storage system to give me 2-3 Gal an hour filling with a stand by fill of 2 Gal. Here is a video of my Nissan and home filling. I pay 60 cents a Gal of CNG at home filling.I save from $200 to $400 a month in fuel cost. At a rounded off $300 times 12 months is $3600 a year in cash or take home pay back in my pocket. .

  58. Solar probably will dominate energy of the future but that is not to say gas cannot be used in the mean time.

    Gas powered stations can be very efficient and can also be used in 18 wheeler's .

    A diverse energy strategy is required and not to put all our eggs in one basket.

    Fusion, hydro and clean coal will also play a part and when combined with nanotechnology it could create an energy surplus that could then be used for research.

  59. Solar power could dominate and solve our energy needs within a few years if we committed to it. As a result, gas powered vehicles have a very limited useful life.
    Pickens is an oil guy trying to extend the use of fossil fuels as long as he can.
    Because of the lies spread about John Kerry's military service in T Boone's Swiftboat political ads, I do not trust anything T Boone says. T is not getting any traction in congress because of those ads too.

  60. He's a billionaire who would lie to make even more billions. He couldn't care less about what is good for the US – he only cares about what will make him more billions.

  61. 3 Trillion 1 Trillion to OPEC 500 Billion to Saudi Arabia 500 Billion to Israel. So where does the other 1 Trillion go? And T. B. We did this already. We went to Crude oil which we had in this country. And within 50 years Big oil was fleecing the American people. And when General Oil was broken they colluded. and placed American oil on the International market to maximize their profits. Costing the American people money again. So what is to prevent Big Gas from doing the same in 50 years?

  62. Natural gas burns cleaner….but when we mine it we release methane into the atmosphere which is a green house gas and totally negates any benefits from its clean burning properties.  Also breaking up all the shale during the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is known to cause earthquakes.  They're literally playing with fire with this process.  Who knows what's going to happen as they continue to frack the crap out of North America.  He's just another dumb old guy leaving a mess for future generations to clean up.

  63. American Renewable Energy Independence!! https://plus.google.com/104721615785148981511/posts <>  American Energy Independence!! https://www.facebook.com/louielamson.nguyen/posts/10153320819137348  <> https://plus.google.com/109436772583545723197/posts <> https://plus.google.com/113566373167591283881/posts

  64. This is the talk that made me stop watching Ted Talks forever.

    And not because of T. Boone Pickens… but because of the virtue signalling asshat that ran up on stage after he was done. It's as if he NEVER listened to any of the talk.

    NEVER have I seen a Ted rep run up and challenge a speaker like this. Ted sucks.

  65. I completely agree with pikens we must get rid of imprtation of oil lets keep all of the money here in America. we could convert current vehicles to natural gas it would more than pay for it self not to mention natural gas is way better for a combustion engine

  66. Want to know the future? Go read my tweets @seaplanguy on twitter. twitter.com/seaplaneguy

    Whether you want to cut CO2 or cut costs, my new engine is the solution for LOWEST CO2 and LOWEST COSTS bar none. A Tesla is 18 times more cost than my technology. The future is in the air, not on the road. Batteries are not valid for air transit. You can have ALL ground and air transit with MY engine, but not with GE, GM or Tesla.

    Oil demand will plummet and so will NG. 80-95% of the fuel GONE with my engine. . At no time will Tesla and electrics be LOWER CO2 EVER. Just read my tweets. Have some guts and learn the truth…

    TED…do you want someone who has solutions, put me on your show. Want no solutions, then keep it up.

    Pickens is right, Natural Gas is the future, but current engines can't make it happen, neither will the compressors and fill stations.

    We don't need an energy plan. We need my engine. This engine technology would make trucks, cars and airplanes able to use NG.

    My engine can also use renewables and run on Battery or DC electricity and BEAT an Electric motor (Tesla) based system. We move through air, not electricity. Air and CARBON is the KEY to dropping fuel use by 80-95%. All of the IPCC goals can be met and more with my engine. Tesla cannot…. Run it by the numbers. twitter.com/seaplaneguy

  67. You can't get to low CO2 by Electrics, but you can with my engine. My engine can run on a battery with a combustion engine. Read that 1000 times. The key is energy from ALL sources, including bio, and natural sources, not just electricity. No, NG is much better. Solar can make NG. Carbon cycle. We are not screwed. We just have ignorant people with wrong goals.

    Again, want to know the future? go read my tweets. twitter.com/seaplaneguy

  68. The world gets off carbon fuels by my engine. My tweets explain. No smog. No soot. No spills. We don't need to get off NG or fuels.

  69. National aquaduct construction from Gulf of Mexico to Pacific to Atlantic, possibly to Great Lakes also: harvesting sea minerals, hemp/corn (ethanol)/food crop irrigation, drinking water production, and…ENERGY creation using hydroelectric, wind, hydrogen, and solar methods. Natural gas/coal would be used as backup resource for critical systems. Write your government officials, use social media, and request investment in these opportunities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *