The REAL Pickens plan

I think the wind power part of the plan is going to do fine. Not so sure about the natural gas vehicles... although there is one on the market for Californians and New Yorkers. From the sounds of it however, it sounds like a Tesla will take you further on a charge than the Civic on a tank of CNG (200 miles vs. 170).

I've heard those that say that EVs won't catch on until people can take long road trips in them. I may be wrong, but I don't see any problem with an EV that goes 60-70 miles on a charge, as long as I get to keep my Prius!

 

Apparently it's a secret to his advertising campaign.

... Brad

 

Changing the vehicle "fueling" infrastructure from gas to anything else is a big undertaking. The only other infrastructure in place is electric power distribution. (How many homes and gas stations don't have electricity?) Changing car power to ANYTHING other than electricity will require huge taxes on every driver....and I mean huge.

 

Well, there is a NG distribution system in place already and like EVs, many folks can refuel at home, using something like "PHILL" from Honda. I'm not advocating NGVs, personally I think that the NG is better spent displacing coal fired plants and firming up CSP plant power. It's just more efficient and therefore a better use of a limited resource.

 

It seems to me that Pickens plan is really dealing with two issues, the outflow of US dollars for crude and the fact that crude is a finite resource. I'm going to eliminate GW as an issue here since as a transportation engineer (earned doctorate) I can't give much credence to GW being human caused when there isn't even a convention established to measure the earth's temperature nor explain why the earth's temperature regulation system doesn't have sufficient flexibility to deal with a change in a source that accounts for 3.4% of a gas that only makes up around 5% of the total greenhouse gas complement.

The bottom line is that we need to move away from foreign fossil fuels because it adversely affects our economy, and to, as a long term goal, move away from fossil fuels since they are limited in quantity. In that context Picken's plan makes a great deal of sense. Use wind to replace coal and oil fired bulk electric production and use natural gas to replace gasoline powered vehicles. These technologies exist, in the case of natural gas much of the distribution infrastructure is in place, so the changes can physically be made and it is probably affordable.

I frankly believe that additional drilling and an increase in domestic crude production is necessary, primarily for the domestic economy but also to lessen the risk associated with the changeover in major systems. I also believe that increased nuclear power generation will be necessary because of the times necessary to construct sufficient wind generating capacity.

Will Pickens or his company (or some other private concern) make money? Certainly! But can government do it? Not a chance (and I have worked for both federal and municipal governments at various times over a 40 year career). The private sector is the only way it will actually be accomplished and a phased approach is the only way it will physically be accomplished.

Government's approach to the GW scare (and the reason I omitted it as a reason for anything) will only require everyone to return to an 18th century standard of living and result in environmental regulation so oppressive that nothing will ever be accomplished but the production of environmental impact statements.

 

All fossil fuels are finite.

Moving from foreign crude to domestic NG isn't accomplishing anything. Natural Gas is a fossil fuel, also a finite source and some say that's peaked too. So switching from oil to natural gas isn't going to be a solution. It will only delay the problem and waste time and resources that would better be spent on a non-fossil fuel, renewable solution.

 

Actually, moving from foreign crude to domestic crude or NG does quite a lot from an economic perspective. To the extent that the dollars spent on crude flow to domestic owners that capital is available for domestic investment (and employment), some of which will certainly be on alternative energy sources and serves to expand our economy rather than that of the OPEC members. It also provides some insulation should OPEC or individual producers attempt to shut off crude supplies as an act of political blackmail.

Here in north Texas, with the exploration and production in the Barnett shale deposits underway I find it hard to take "...and some say that it has peaked..." very seriously. Finite to be sure, but sufficient as a stop gap and with much of a needed distribution system in place one that can realistically be implemented.

Keep in mind that I fully understand that crude and NG resources are both limited and finite; however, I have spent nearly 40 years planning, designing and constructing infrastructure. The time necessary to put infrastructure for proven technology on the ground is substantial, particularly with the level of environmental regulation that exists today. Attempting to ignore the phasing to get to a desired end point and placing all of our eggs in an unproven technology's basket, or a technology that requires capital investment beyond any realistic means to finance, is simply unrealistic and doomed to failure.

I place the folks who say we can simply continue the way we are and those who say we shouldn't change until we change completely in the same category, that is, not living in the real world. Like it or not we need to transition. NG is a good intermediate step for transportation, particularly surface transportation, since most gasoline powered engines can be modified to run on CNG fairly inexpensively, even those in our Prii. In many ways it is more practical since a small modification to existing vehicles is possible where massive changeover of the existing fleet, to say fuel cell powered cars, is simply not possible, either financially or physically in a relatively short period of time - 5 to 10 years.

I'm not sure our objectives are different; however, an objective only becomes reality when it can be implemented physically, politically and financially. Until then it is only a dream.

 

The part you're missing is that the Earth's temp regulation doesn't cares nowt about our way of life or how many of us live on the planet. The earth has had nastier climants (from our POV) in the past. It's pretty unlikely that 7 billion people can live at our current standards in a substantially different climate. That's the risk.

You're right, but wind alone can't offset coal fired electricity unless you add some kinda storage mechanism. I wouldn't worry too much about oil fired electricity production, here in the States there's very little of that. Puerto Rico is probably the biggest consumer of oil for power and
even they are converting to, surprise surprise, natural gas.

If you think that we should develop Nuclear power because it'll take too long to bring the wind on line you're setting yourself up for failure. Wind is MUCH MUCH easier to bring on line than Nuclear.

Unless it's coupled with a very well thought out means of reducing our consumption of the resource it's a waste of time. Basic measures that we can take now, that have an immediate impact (like tyre inflation and regular tune-ups) will reduce our imports more than offshore drilling because they can be implemented now and will last a lot longer than that oil. Throwing in CAFE standards and market forces and it's an even stronger case for efficiency/conservation.

You mean the same Gov't that put a man on the moon in 10 years? Or the one that developed the atomic bomb? Or the one that defeated the Nazis/Japan?

Explain how. I haven't heard of anyone proposing that. Last time a checked, the Gov't was telling me (read Cheney/Bush) that conservation is a cute little virtue, that there was no climate change what-so-ever, and that unregulated capitalism would lead us all to great prosperity.

 

I checked out the Barnett Field. It's hardly a plum. Yes, it contains a lot of NG, but it's not easy to get at. It may be the biggest NG field in the country but when you look at our NG consumption, it's really not a lot (2.5 - 30 Tcft):

Natural Gas End Use Consumption

Imagine what kind of pressure the transportation sector would exert on NG prices. They're already moving steadily upward.

It seems to me that the most efficient use of our NG resources is in:

1.) displacing coal fired power production
2.) firming up wind, CSP, and other intermittent power sources
3.) making fertilizer

 

If the Picken's plan were successful, then it would have to be followed with the Picken's extraction plan since NG would have extreme shortages. (Actually, it already is running short, but that does not seem to be realized by quite a few.)

Economics Question. If you finance a Natural Gas fueling station that required 20 years to pay back the investment, should you do your homework to ensure that NG will be available for sale for at least that long?

 

Why finance a NG fueling station when you'll really need an EV fueling station much sooner than 20 years?

Let him have his wind. Big bags of it. But building a nationwide infrastructure for refueling NG cars is a waste of time and money. Do solar/wind/electrical instead. More people will be driving EVs than will be driving NG.

 

Actually, I would not finance an EV fueling station either....since those have all been built.

 

ViroPop is my favorite Video Podcast.

This exposes something else disturbing about Pickens:

 

Thanks to the new discovery of Natural Gas in Shale rock there is now an abundance of NG. Which is enough to fuel transportation and still be used for energy regeneration for at least 110 years.

I want a Natural Gas Plugin Prius! Fill it up with Natural Gas at home and charge the battery overnight. Talk about low emissions!

 

My problem with Mr. Pickens' plan is that I think economic security is in diversity of power sources. Someone mentioned eggs in a basket. I think our energy source basket needs to look like an Easter basket... wind, solar, biomass, hydro, coal, nuclear, natural gas and even oil. All of them have environmental problems and they aren't all renewable, but in diversity is security. I want to see gasoline-powered cars, hydrogen-powered cars, natural gas-powered cars, electric cars, and hybrids of all possible types. And we should be researching uses for greater efficiencies and fewer environmental downsides to all of them.

And we of course need to be doing our utmost to decrease the size of the basket too.

 

I fully understand the Earth doesn't care - humans do. Perhaps tsunamis, earthquakes, AIDS are simply nature's way of dealing with the over population of humans.

I'm not sure I agree with you but you could be correct. Nuclear is dependent on environmental regulation and processing while wind is dependent on both environmental regulation and processing as well as physical infrastructure. The key locations for wind energy tend to be either remote or in scenic areas where opposition is possible (remember Cape Cod). South Dakota, for example, has the greatest wind potential but little infrastructure to connect to the grid and the system has little or no storage capacity for when wind may be off line for long enough periods to cause a supply deficiency.

First, I haven't seen any research that indicates that tire under inflation or poorly tuned engines have any material impact on consumption levels. Professional drivers (and many others who care about maintaining their vehicles) generally maintain a pretty close watch on their tire pressures and newer, electronically controlled engines don't need the continual tuning of older mechanically controlled and carburated engines. I'm afraid that is simply campaign rhetoric that has no basis in reality. That said, I do not disagree that increased emphasis on conservation is important, and prices remaining at fairly high levels will contribute to that. Increased domestic production of crude affects the overall economy; however, and isn't related solely to energy policy. This complexity results in other issues being as important as energy policy, such as where US dollar flow and which economies they expand. CAFE standards present a mixed bag unless newer, more fuel efficient vehicles, are affordable to a broad sector of the population. Otherwise, increasing CAFE standards that result in higher prices for new vehicles will retard the change over of the existing fleet to a newer more fuel efficient fleet - market forces do work but only within the financial ability of the affected population to consume. Be careful what you wish for.

Careful now, if you look at the effort to put a man on the moon you will find out that it was accomplished primarily by private industry through contracts with a small federal agency staffed with subject matter experts and a nearly unlimited budget. Today that same agency, which now has many professional bureaucrats rather than professional scientists in senior positions, can't seem to find a replacement for the shuttle. The story of the Manhattan project is very similar, and if you look at the history of how the government (particularly the federal government) was "managed" during WWII you will find that it was effectively run by academics and senior private sector managers detailed to government positions during the "emergency." I'm afraid your statement only has value in a political diatribe to an ignorant audience.

If you attempt to add, through treaty, target levels of greenhouse gas reduction history indicates that the regulation enacted by government to attempt to achieve those levels will be massive, burdensome, and essentially retard development of the infrastructure necessary to maintain the standard of living for a growing population. Assuming further, based on the proposed protocols, that the industrialized world will have to take the brunt of the emission reductions, and since its standard of living is based to a greater extent on the modern energy, production and transportation infrastructure already in place, I'm not sure how you can reach any other conclusion, particularly when you acknowledge that the exponential population increase and the destruction of the natural system for scrubbing the atmosphere in the third world will make those reduction levels so high as to preclude maintaining current living standards. You may need to check again, particularly if you want to actually discuss the issue rather than regurgitate campaign slogans.

 

Really? And where are they? I can drive across the country (or even across the state) and no be worried about recharging my EV? Wow. When did that happen? Do you have a pic of the signage so I know where the refueling stations are?

 

Really? Says who?

 

Navigant Consulting

Latest numbers from research can be found here:

http://www.navigantconsulting.com/downloads/knowledge_center/North_American_Natural_Gas_Supply_Assessment.pdf

 

Oh.

I thought maybe it was some scientists or the government.