Dear Mr. Pickens,
As you know most of our electric power is produced by burning coal or petroleum products. Why do they do that? Combustion produces heat/steam to run a turbogenerator. Is it necessary to burn all that coal and petroleum? No!
In 1983 Craig F. Bohren published an article with a question as the title (See "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys. 51(4). (323-327)). The classical answer to the question (of the title) would be an emphatic "That's Impossible" and cite the law of conservation of energy. In general relativity there is no such law.
But, the title came as a result of an experiment that since has been replicated in the non-linear optics lab of almost every university. The experiment works for light in the infra-red range (heat) for dielectric particles and light in the ultra-violet range (sun-burn) for conductive particles. If you read the article cited above, you will note that the particle absorbs (and re-emits) some 18 times more light than is incident upon it. This means the the particle amplifies the incident light by 18 times, that is, the particle in the experiment has a COP of 18. Where does the excess light come from? That question is answered in the reference below. Why has this not been used to produce all the power we need? Because it is impossible according the mathematical model used in Electrical Engineering.
The "Bohren Experiment" produces a COP of 18, but that is under ideal conditions. However, if under less than ideal conditions a COP of 2.5 could be obtained, regulated positive feedback would produce a source of heat energy that required NO fuel consumption. Existing coal burning power plants and existing petroleum products burning steam plants could be retrofitted with the technology explained below.
So far as I know the first time any inventor suggested the use of the excess energy demonstrated in the "Bohren Experiment" to produce electric power appears in a Provisional Patent Application which the inventors, Thomas E. Bearden and Kenneth D. Moore, released into the public domain.
The title of the Provisional Patent Application is Increasing the Coefficient of Performance of Electromagnetic Power Systems by Extracting and Using Excess EM Energy from the Heaviside Energy Flow Component.
If you contact me, I can supply the text in a PPA as a PDF or OpenOffice document.
The number of kilowatt-hours (KWHs) per ton of coal (or barrel of petroleum) is proportional to the Coefficient of Performance (COP). Therefore, if the COP could be doubled, the coal (or/and petroleum) consumption would be cut in half.
The basic research has been done, the concept proven, the PPA written; all that is remains is for someone to spring loose with the funding needed for development and implementation. The government will never do it because the mathematical model used in Electrical Engineering does not allow it.
The energy crisis cannot be completely solved as long as energy production depends upon the consumption of material (mass).
I have more to say, but this is probably already too long.
Larry Brown
Your Eyes and Ears in SW Oregon
Now using a Mac Mini (Apple)
P.S. I saw your plan in two different You Tube videos. As a Caltech grad (MS in EE, 1954), I was impressed. IMHO, we, as a nation, should consider all of the energy sources that you enumerated along with any new, "out of the box" technologies, but the "playing field" should be leveled. All government interference in the energy markets should be stopped. This will allow all technologies to compete--the market will select those technologies that are most cost-effective. It was government regulations, subsidies, and taxes that brought us the "energy crisis."