You question inspired me to write an entire blog post.....gave you a vote for your trouble...:0)

The short answer is that we need a multi-source energy plan.

I agree we need a multi-source energy plan (that includes oil).  The goal is to reduce oil consumption,  not eliminate it.  Pickens is focusing on two alternatives - natural gas and wind.   The thing I like about wind is that it's free and it will never go away.  

 Here in the Twin Cities,  we just had a grocery delivery service - Simon Delivers -  go out of business because they couldn't keep up with rising fuel prices.   One of their main competitors - Schwans - is doing just fine.  Their whole fleet of trucks runs on propane

Marcus, it reminds me of:

"Save the Earth, save the Earth...

Earth will be fine, people will be gone"

George Carlin [may he R.I.P.]

I am quite a skeptic.  If my business was making billions on oil futures, I'd make my hobby alternative energy too.  I believe Pickens has profited handily from the runup.  It is nice someone who has profited from oil will work in this area.  In the past, a lot of alternative energy projects have been hype because they were not economically competitive with oil.  I am sure Pickens is savy to this, and he has made enough he doesn't have to care.  He may have enough to utilize economy of scale.

At the present time biofuels are not a viable alternative to petroleum.  Yes I have driven with vegetable oil in my diesel car.  There isn't enough land to produce vegetable oil and ethanal for every car.  The price of soybean oil at Costco tracks just above the price of diesel in the U.S.  Still over twice the price of diesel in Mexico.  

If the U.S. raises taxes enough, maybe our citizens will move to petroleum exporting countries.

I saw pickens on TV.  He evaded answering a question.  He criticised the status quo instead of talking about practicalities of implementation.

Pickes did say what he wanted though.  He wants wind power and solar to provide power on the grid, displacing power generated by natural gas.  He wants natural gas to be used in cars.  He wants to be percieved as a savior of the nation.

Here are my thought on this as a degreed engineer and a sailor. 

    1) Solar and wind provide power mostly in the day time and is aditionally subject to the weather.  This introduces an economic inefficency.  The same amount of fuel powered power plants are required to produce peak power.  Having power plants generating power only for peak conditions and bad weather is an extreemly bad use of capital.  This makes it more expensive to generate electricity.  The same amount of interest has to be paid for the same amount of power generating capacity which will be used to produce a fraction of the revenue.  Power costs will go up as a result.

   2) Moving natural gas from power generation plants to fuel cars which are much less thermodynamically efficient than power plants means T-Boone really wants natural gas to be used more inefficiently.  This will increase the value and revenue of T-Boone's natural gas interests.

   3) T-Boone wants to use government subsidies for wind power to vastly expand his natural gas revenue.  This is the formula for wealth creation.

T-Boone is in cahoots with Pelosi.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/pelosi_and_the_big_wind_booned.html

I think the wind power is something that will work for the long haul, but LNG for cars? Where are you going to fill up?

Pickens is an oil man and all of a sudden he is talking down oil. My bet is he is now short oil and long natural gas. He didnt make all those millions by being stupid. Cant blame the guy for trying to make a buck though.

At Pickens's LNG fueling stations.  http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/stations/stations.html

I remember taking taxis in Japan 27 years ago using the stuff.  I have seen LNG stations in Tijuana, Mexico too.